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. It discloses the critical behavioral constraint ('only if in draft state') which is valuable context beyond basic deletion. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens if the expense isn't in draft state.

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 perfectly structured with three brief, purposeful sentences: the core functionality, the parameter explanation, and the return value. Every sentence earns its place with zero wasted words, and the most important information ('only if in draft state') is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter destructive operation with no annotations but with an output schema, the description provides good coverage: purpose, constraint, parameter meaning, and return indication. The main gap is lack of error handling details, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need to fully describe return values.

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 provides a clear explanation of the single parameter ('ID of expense to delete'), which adds meaningful context beyond the schema's basic type information. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this adequately compensates for the schema's lack of semantic information.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('an expense'), with the specific constraint 'only if in draft state' that distinguishes it from other deletion operations. This provides precise differentiation from sibling tools like 'delete_timesheet' or general deletion 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?

The description explicitly states 'only if in draft state', providing clear context for when to use this tool. However, it doesn't mention alternatives (like what to do if the expense isn't in draft state) or compare with other expense-related tools like 'update_expense' or 'list_expenses'.

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