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 it's a 'Get' operation, implying read-only, but doesn't cover aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or data freshness. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. There's minimal waste, though the formatting with quotes and indentation slightly reduces readability.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers purpose and parameters well, but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral context. The output schema existence means return values don't need explanation, but overall gaps remain for effective agent 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 semantics beyond the input schema: it specifies the date format (YYYY-MM-DD) and clarifies that parameters are optional, which the schema only implies through defaults and null types. With 0% schema description coverage, this compensates well for the two parameters, though it could detail default behaviors or constraints.

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 ('Get') and resource ('total costs per R&D project from analytic accounts'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_projects' or 'get_timesheet_summary_by_employee', which might also involve project-related data, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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, context for R&D projects, or compare to other cost-related or project-related tools in the sibling list, leaving the agent with no usage direction beyond the basic purpose.

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