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 mentions what the tool does (get a summary) and the return format, but lacks critical behavioral details such as whether this is a read-only operation, any authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 with clear sections for Args and Returns. It uses bullet points for parameters and avoids unnecessary verbosity. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information about parameters and return values.

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 that there's an output schema (which covers return values), the description doesn't need to explain return details. However, with no annotations and a 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well for parameters but lacks behavioral context (e.g., safety, performance). It's adequate for a read operation but could be more complete regarding usage constraints.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for all three parameters: 'date_from' and 'date_to' are explained as start and end dates with format YYYY-MM-DD, and 'expected_hours_per_day' is described with its default value and purpose. This fully documents the parameters beyond the bare schema.

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 a summary of hours logged by employee for a given period.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('summary of hours logged by employee'), and scope ('for a given period'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_timesheets' or 'get_timesheet' (if those exist), which would require a 5.

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 sibling tools like 'list_timesheets' or explain scenarios where this summary tool is preferred over raw timesheet listings. The only implied usage is for summarizing hours by employee, but no explicit alternatives or exclusions are stated.

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