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 this is a read operation ('Get details'), implying it's likely safe and non-destructive, but doesn't mention potential errors (e.g., invalid ID), authentication needs, rate limits, or response format details. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior fully.

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, with the core purpose stated first in a clear sentence. The Args and Returns sections are structured but could be more concise by integrating them into the main text, as they add minimal value beyond the schema.

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 low complexity (single parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about behavioral traits (e.g., error handling) and usage guidelines, making it incomplete for optimal agent understanding despite the structured support.

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 explicitly documents the single parameter ('contact_id: Contact ID'), which adds meaning beyond the input schema's 0% description coverage. However, it doesn't elaborate on format constraints (e.g., integer range) or provide examples, so it only partially compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('details of a specific contact'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_contacts' or 'create_contact', which would require explicit comparison 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 like 'list_contacts' for browsing or 'create_contact' for adding new contacts. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a valid contact_id, or exclusions for when other tools might be more appropriate.

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