Octura Solutions Site Tools

Project Rescue Risk Grader

odoo-project-rescue-risk-grader

Grade how badly an in-flight Odoo implementation is going.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`goLiveSlips`	No	How many times the official go-live date has been pushed back.	none
`billingModel`	No	How the current Odoo partner bills, and whether the original estimate has been exceeded.	fixedPrice
`rollbackPlan`	No	Whether a documented rollback plan for the data migration exists and has been seen.	documented
`ticketSystem`	No	Whether bugs and change requests are tracked somewhere the client can see and comment.	sharedTracker
`roadmapClarity`	No	Whether a dated, signed-off roadmap of remaining milestones exists.	datedSignedOff
`teamConfidence`	No	How much the operations and finance teams trust the system for day one.	veryConfident
`customWorkflows`	No	Whether custom code is tested before handover or bugs surface in basic workflows after it is called done.	mostlyStandard
`dayToDayContact`	No	Who runs the project day to day, and whether the people who scoped and sold the work are still involved. Replaces the earlier engineerAccess key, whose values are still accepted.	engineerWeekly
`followUpCadence`	No	Whether a written weekly status update against the plan actually arrives.	weeklyWritten

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedAug 18, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / dayToDayContact

Added value: +{
+  "default": "engineerWeekly",
+  "description": "Who runs the project day to day, and whether the people who scoped and sold the work are still involved. Replaces the earlier engineerAccess key, whose values are still accepted.",
+  "enum": [
+    "engineerWeekly",
+    "seniorScoper",
+    "accountManager",
+    "unknownManager"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

removedInput schema / properties / engineerAccess

Removed value: -{
-  "default": "weekly",
-  "description": "How directly the client reaches the engineer writing the code.",
-  "enum": [
-    "weekly",
-    "viaAccountManager",
-    "never"
-  ],
-  "type": "string"
-}

AddedAug 18, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It indicates the tool 'grades' risk, implying a non-destructive, read-only analysis. However, it does not clarify whether the tool returns a score, severity level, or suggestions, nor does it mention any side effects or internal logic, leaving behavioral gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's core function. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy. While it could add a brief note on output or usage, it remains highly concise and clear.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is somewhat sparse. It lacks details on the output format (e.g., risk level, numeric score) and does not explain how the parameters combine to produce a grade. With high parameter count and no output schema, more contextual completeness is warranted.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond the schema's defaults and enums. It focuses on the overall purpose rather than clarifying each parameter's nuance, so it meets but does not exceed the baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool grades the 'risk' of an 'in-flight Odoo implementation,' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'compare_odoo_vs' (comparison) or 'odoo-implementation-cost-calculator' (cost estimation) by focusing on risk assessment of ongoing projects.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is used for risk grading during an implementation but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., if the project is already failing, use this; if just planning, use a cost calculator). It does not mention exclusions or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Octura Solutions Site Tools tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?