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 tool creates an expense and returns a confirmation with an ID, which implies a write operation. However, it lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't mention permissions required, whether the expense is automatically submitted or saved as draft, potential side effects (e.g., notifications), or error conditions (e.g., invalid product_id).

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, args, returns) and uses bullet-like formatting for parameters. It's appropriately sized—each sentence adds value, such as explaining parameter meanings and referencing other tools. A slight deduction because the 'Args:' and 'Returns:' labels are somewhat redundant given the structured format, but overall it's 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?

Given the tool's complexity (a write operation with 6 parameters) and no annotations, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameter semantics thoroughly and mentions an output schema exists ('Returns: Confirmation with created expense ID'), so it doesn't need to detail return values. However, it lacks behavioral context like permissions or side effects, which is a gap for a creation tool.

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 significant semantic value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It clearly explains each parameter's purpose (e.g., 'Expense name/title' for name, 'Expense category ID (see list_expense_categories)' for product_id), provides format details ('YYYY-MM-DD' for date_expense), and indicates defaults and optionality. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 tool's purpose: 'Create a new expense report.' It specifies the verb ('create') and resource ('expense report'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_expense_report' or 'update_expense', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 sibling tools like 'create_expense_report' (which might be for multi-expense reports) or 'update_expense' (for modifications), nor does it specify prerequisites or contextual constraints for creating an expense.

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