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. It mentions filtering by department and pagination (limit/offset), which adds some behavioral context beyond basic listing. However, it lacks critical details: whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how results are formatted, if there are rate limits, or if it's destructive. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 in the first sentence. The Args/Returns sections are structured clearly, though slightly verbose with defaults repeated from the schema. Every sentence adds value, but minor trimming could improve efficiency.

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 (list operation), 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers parameters well but lacks behavioral context like authentication needs or result format details. With output schema present, it doesn't need to explain returns, but overall completeness is minimal viable.

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 significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% schema description coverage. It explains that 'department_id' filters by department, 'limit' sets the maximum number (with default 50), and 'offset' handles pagination (default 0). This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't detail data types or constraints like integer/null for department_id.

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 ('List') and resource ('employees in Odoo'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_employee' (singular) and 'list_departments' (different resource), though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. The purpose is specific but lacks explicit sibling differentiation 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use 'list_employees' over 'get_employee' (for a single employee) or 'search_records' (for more complex queries), nor does it specify prerequisites like authentication or context. The description offers no usage context or exclusions.

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