MCP Odoo Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action 'Add an attachment' and mentions a return 'Confirmation with created attachment ID', which implies a write operation with a response. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, file size limits, or side effects (e.g., if the attachment overwrites existing ones). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool, scoring 2 for partial but insufficient transparency.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core action. The Args and Returns sections are structured clearly, with no wasted sentences. However, the formatting includes extra quotes and indentation that slightly reduce readability, and it could be more streamlined (e.g., combining lines). Overall, it's efficient but not perfect, scoring 4.

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 complexity (mutation with 3 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema (implied by Returns section), the description is moderately complete. It covers the action, parameters, and return value, but lacks behavioral context like error cases or system constraints. With output schema handling return values, the description meets minimum viability but has clear gaps, scoring 3.

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 description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'expense_id' is the 'Expense ID', 'file_path' is the 'Absolute path to file to attach', and 'filename' is 'optional, uses original filename by default'. This clarifies purpose and defaults, compensating well for the schema gap. With 3 parameters and low schema coverage, the description provides good value, though it could detail formats (e.g., integer for ID), earning a 4.

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 'Add' and resource 'attachment to an existing expense', making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_expense' or 'list_expense_attachments' by focusing on attachment addition rather than creation or listing. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all possible alternatives, keeping it at 4 instead of 5.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., expense must exist), exclusions (e.g., not for creating expenses), or compare to siblings like 'list_expense_attachments'. Usage is implied through the action but lacks explicit context, scoring 2 for minimal guidance.

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