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 for behavioral disclosure. It states it 'Get details' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what happens if the order_id is invalid. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this lacks critical behavioral context, though it doesn't contradict anything.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by clear sections for Args and Returns. It uses minimal words without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted content.

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 (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details, which are gaps for a tool with no annotations. It's adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 'order_id' by specifying it's for retrieving details of a sale order, which clarifies its role beyond the schema's basic type (integer). With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this adequately compensates, though it could specify format or source (e.g., from list_sale_orders).

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 ('details of a sale order with its lines'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_sale_orders' by focusing on a single order's details rather than listing multiple orders. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_invoice' or other get_* tools, which slightly limits 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 (e.g., needing an order_id from list_sale_orders), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like get_invoice. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection 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.