MCP Odoo Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, if deletion is permanent/reversible, what happens to associated records, or any rate limits. The mention of 'Deletion confirmation' in Returns hints at output but lacks detail. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the action, and the subsequent lines provide essential parameter and return context without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool.

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 (destructive mutation), lack of annotations, and presence of an output schema (which should cover return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and parameter but misses critical behavioral details like permissions, permanence, and error handling. The output schema existence reduces the need to explain returns, but overall completeness is borderline.

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 context for the single parameter: 'timesheet_id: ID of entry to delete' clarifies that this identifies the specific timesheet to delete. With schema description coverage at 0% (the schema only provides title and type), this compensates well. However, it doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., valid ID ranges) or where to obtain the ID, leaving minor gaps.

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 'timesheet entry', making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'update_timesheet' by specifying deletion rather than modification. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'delete_expense', which is a similar deletion operation on a different resource.

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., needing an existing timesheet), when deletion is appropriate versus updating, or what happens to related data. With sibling tools like 'update_timesheet' and 'list_timesheets' available, this lack of contextual guidance is a significant gap.

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