Odoo MCP by bancada

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, and the description goes beyond by stating 'No toca Odoo' — clarifying that this tool only queries connector usage and does not interact with Odoo itself. This adds behavioral context beyond the annotation, though it doesn't disclose other traits like rate limits (which are less relevant for a zero-parameter read-only tool).

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

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by usage context. No wasted words; every clause contributes to clarifying what the tool does and when to use it.

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

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

Given zero parameters and an output schema present, the description fully covers what the tool does and when to use it. There is nothing an agent needs to know to invoke it correctly that is missing.

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

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

The tool has zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details (correctly, since there are none) and does not need to compensate for any schema gap.

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

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

The description clearly states the purpose: reporting how many Odoo MCP connector calls have been used and how many remain this month. It explicitly differentiates itself from sibling tools by stating it does not touch Odoo, only queries connector usage, making it unmistakable among the Odoo operation tools.

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

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

Provides explicit usage contexts: answering 'how much have I spent?' or 'how much do I have left?' and notes that no prior Odoo operation is needed. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but given the tool is unique for this purpose, the guidance is clear and sufficient.

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

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

The description adds the return format {model, id}, which is useful, but it does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as error handling, required permissions, or side effects. The readOnlyHint: false annotation already indicates a write operation, so the description adds minimal context beyond that.

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

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

The description is extremely short and front-loaded with the core action and return value, but it is under-specified. It is concise but not effective because it omits critical usage context, making it more of a stub than a well-structured description.

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

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

Given the presence of many sibling tools and the tool's complexity (nested objects, write operation), the description is too minimal. It lacks information about valid models, required value structures, or error behavior, leaving the agent without enough context to use it reliably.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters, though the descriptions are vague ('Modelo Odoo', 'Valores del nuevo registro'). The tool description does not add any further meaning to the parameters, so it does not compensate for the schema's lack of detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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

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

The description states a clear verb ('Crea') and a specific resource ('un registro'), and it mentions the return value {model, id}. It is unambiguous about the operation, though it does not differentiate from sibling tools like odoo_write or odoo_execute.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of when creation is appropriate, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and description alone.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, signaling possible mutations, but the description does not add any context about side effects, permission requirements, or the risk of calling arbitrary methods. Since the tool can invoke any model method, including destructive ones, the lack of warning is a significant gap. The description adds nothing beyond what the annotation already implies.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core verb and resource. It includes two illustrative examples that aid understanding without excess words. It is concise and well-structured, though it could benefit from a brief usage note.

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

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

For a generic method executor with readOnlyHint=false, the description is incomplete. It does not warn about potential data mutation, mention that method availability varies by model, or clarify error behavior. The tool is powerful and potentially dangerous, yet the description gives no guidance on safe invocation. Even with an output schema present, the lack of caution makes it under-specified.

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

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all four parameters (model, method, args, kwargs), so the schema already explains their purpose. The description adds no extra semantic detail, such as how arguments should be formatted or examples of common methods. With full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; no bonus is earned.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb 'Llama' (calls) and the resource 'cualquier método del modelo' (any method of the model), with concrete examples like 'confirmar pedidos, validar facturas'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like odoo_read, odoo_write, and odoo_create by positioning it as a generic method executor. It is not a tautology and gives a solid sense of what the tool does.

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

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

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternatives. It implies that it is for calling arbitrary methods not covered by specialized tools, but it does not state exclusions or recommend this only for specific scenarios. An agent cannot determine when to prefer odoo_execute over odoo_read or odoo_write based on this text.

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

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

The readOnlyHint annotation is present, and the description ('inspects') is consistent with it, so no contradiction. However, the description adds no behavioral detail beyond the annotation itself—no mention of return format, error conditions, or side effects, which would be valuable even with the annotation.

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

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

The description is extremely concise—a single clause—and front-loads the core action. It earns its place with no filler. However, it may be overly terse, lacking any secondary context that would improve usability.

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

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

Given the simplicity of the tool (2 params, read-only, output schema present), the description is minimally adequate. It clearly names the operation, and the schema fills in parameter details. But it does not explain what 'attributes' are used for or what the output contains, which leaves some gaps.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%—both 'model' and 'attributes' have descriptions in the input schema. The description adds no extra meaning to the parameters, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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

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

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Inspects the fields of a model'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like odoo_list_models (lists models) and odoo_read (reads records). However, it does not explicitly contrast with those siblings, and the purpose could be slightly more precise (e.g., 'field definitions' instead of just 'fields').

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as odoo_list_models or odoo_execute. The one-line description implies a usage context but provides no exclusions or conditions for selection.

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

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

The annotations already include readOnlyHint: true, which covers safety. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the literal purpose—it does not mention return format, whether it lists all models or only installed ones, or any limits/performance characteristics. It adds no value beyond the annotation and the tool's obvious read-only nature.

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

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

A single, focused sentence with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded and the description is appropriately sized for a simple listing tool. It is concise without being under-specified to the point of confusion.

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

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

The tool is simple: two optional parameters, an output schema, and a read-only annotation. The description states the basic purpose, and the output schema covers return values. However, it lacks any guidance on when to use this tool relative to siblings or what the filter can do, making it slightly incomplete for an agent operating in a broader Odoo toolset.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both 'limit' and 'filter' having explicit descriptions in the schema. The description adds no further clarification or example of how to use the parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies without additional contribution from the description.

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

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

The description 'Descubre modelos disponibles en Odoo' uses a clear verb (descubre/discover) and specific resource (modelos disponibles en Odoo). It conveys the tool's purpose effectively. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like odoo_fields_get or odoo_search_read, relying instead on the tool name and contextual inference.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusions, no mention of using it as a precursor to other Odoo operations, and no reference to the filter capabilities that might make it useful for targeted discovery. Usage context is entirely absent.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with that by saying 'reads'. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what the annotation provides—no mention of what happens with invalid IDs, whether fields are returned, or any error behavior. Since annotations carry the safety profile, the description fails to enrich it with extra useful details.

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

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

The description is a single short sentence that is efficient and front-loaded with the core action. It has no filler or redundant phrases. While it is extremely brief, it is appropriately concise for a simple read operation, earning a high score on conciseness alone.

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

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

Given the tool has 3 parameters, an output schema, and annotations, the description is minimal. It lacks any explanation of when to use it, what the fields parameter does, or how it differs from search_read. An agent might infer usage, but for completeness, it should provide at least a hint about the intended context. The tool is simple, but the description leaves important usage nuances unstated.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (model, ids, fields) are already described in the schema. The description only says 'read by ID', which is implicit and doesn't add meaningful detail beyond the schema. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate, and the description contributes no extra semantic value.

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

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

The description states a specific verb ('Lee' = reads) and resource ('registros por ID' = records by ID). It clearly differentiates from siblings like odoo_create, odoo_write, and odoo_unlink, which are mutations, and from odoo_search_read, which implies search rather than direct ID access. However, it doesn't mention the model parameter, which is a key part of the operation, so it's not perfect.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like odoo_search_read. It doesn't state that this is for fetching by known IDs, while search_read is for querying. No exclusions or context are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds the key behavioral detail that it counts without downloading records, which goes beyond the annotation and clarifies that no data payload is returned.

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

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

A single, concise sentence that fully conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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

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

For a simple count operation with a readOnly annotation and an output schema, the description is sufficient. It does not explain edge cases or domain syntax, but the schema covers parameter format, and the output is likely a number, so completeness is adequate.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100% with both 'model' and 'domain' having short descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, so it rests on the baseline for fully described schemas.

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

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

The description 'Cuenta registros sin descargarlos' clearly states the action (counting records) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like odoo_read or odoo_search_read, which fetch data. It specifies the resource (records) and the behavior (without downloading).

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

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

The description implies use for counting without fetching, but does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over search_read or list_models. It lacks explicit 'use this instead of' or alternative conditions, though the purpose is intuitive.

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

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

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation (it says 'lee' which is read). It adds the context that search and read are combined in a single call, which is useful. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects like pagination or default limits, which are covered by the schema. Since annotations already cover the read-only safety profile, the description adds minimal but non-contradictory context.

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

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

The description is a single concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. While it is efficient, it might be slightly too terse, but for conciseness it scores well.

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

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

For a tool with 6 parameters and a sibling tool (odoo_read) that likely overlaps in functionality, the description does not provide enough context for an agent to select it correctly. It does not explain when to use this tool over odoo_read, nor any edge cases. The schema and annotations cover parameters and read-only, but the description lacks usage scenario guidance, making it incomplete for an agent.

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

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 extra meaning to the parameters; it only mentions 'busca y lee' without referencing specific parameters or their semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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

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

The description states a clear action (search and read) and resource (Odoo records), but it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'odoo_read' which likely also reads records. The phrase 'en una sola llamada' hints at combining operations, but it is not explicit enough to distinguish it from a plain read.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like odoo_read, odoo_search_count, or odoo_fields_get. No conditions, exclusions, or context for selection are provided.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'DESTRUCTIVO' and 'permanentemente', adding minor context about irreversibility. However, it does not disclose potential cascading effects or any other behavioral nuances beyond the destructive flag.

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

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

The description is extremely concise, using just two short sentences to convey the purpose and destructive nature. It is front-loaded with the action and warning, with no wasted words.

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

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

For a simple delete operation, the description covers the essential purpose. With schema covering parameters, an output schema present, and annotations indicating destructiveness, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's core function, though it omits any mention of return values or side effects beyond what is structured.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('IDs a eliminar' and 'Modelo Odoo') already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning or detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb 'Elimina' (deletes) and the resource 'registros' (records), and adds 'permanentemente' to specify irreversibility. This distinguishes it from siblings like odoo_create, odoo_write, and odoo_read, which perform different operations.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description simply states the action without context on when it should be invoked.

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

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

Annotations are sparse: only readOnlyHint=false, indicating write operation. The description confirms update but doesn't disclose additional behaviors like whether it overwrites fields, requires specific permissions, or handles partial updates. With minimal annotations, the description should carry more weight but doesn't provide depth.

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

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

It's a single short sentence, exceedingly concise, but it under-specifies. Being concise is good, but it's almost too minimal to be useful. It front-loads the action but lacks any elaboration, so it's not well-structured for an agent to grasp context.

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

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

Given the tool's moderate complexity with an output schema and nested objects, the description is incomplete. It doesn't mention expected behavior on failure, authentication requirements, or how the output is structured. Sibling tools like odoo_execute could overlap, and without usage guidance, an agent may not know when this is the right choice.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with descriptions for model ('Modelo Odoo'), ids ('IDs a actualizar'), and values ('Valores a establecer'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond that, but since coverage is high, baseline 3 is appropriate. The 'values' object is generic and the description doesn't add specifics about field formats or update semantics.

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

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

The description 'Actualiza registros existentes' clearly states it updates existing records, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from create/unlink but doesn't differentiate from other update-like operations like odoo_execute or odoo_search_read. Minimal but adequate.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the verb 'Actualiza' implies writing, there's no mention of when to prefer this over odoo_execute for updates, or any exclusions. The context is minimal and doesn't help routing.

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