MCP Odoo Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves details but doesn't mention whether it's a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens if the invoice doesn't exist. The description is minimal and lacks critical behavioral context for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information. It's front-loaded with the main functionality, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and incomplete parameter documentation (0% schema coverage), it should provide more behavioral context. The description covers the basics but lacks depth for safe and effective use.

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: 'invoice_id: Invoice ID'. Since schema description coverage is 0% (the schema only provides a title and type), this compensates by explaining what the parameter represents. However, it doesn't specify format constraints or examples, leaving some gaps. With 0 parameters documented in the schema, the baseline is 4, and the description meets this by providing basic semantics.

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: 'Get details of a specific invoice with its lines.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('invoice'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_invoices' by focusing on a single invoice. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'get_' tools like 'get_contact' or 'get_employee' beyond the resource type.

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 when to use 'get_invoice' instead of 'list_invoices' or other retrieval tools, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The context is implied (retrieving a single invoice), but no explicit usage instructions are given.

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