MCP Odoo Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination behavior (limit/offset defaults) and filtering capabilities, which is helpful. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when no filters are applied (returns all invoices?). The description adds some context but leaves significant 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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, args, returns) and uses bullet-like formatting. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information. It could be slightly more concise by combining some explanations, but the structure makes it highly scannable and the information density is good.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It thoroughly documents all parameters and their semantics. The output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. The main gaps are behavioral context (auth, errors, etc.) and usage guidelines, but for a listing tool with good parameter documentation, this is fairly complete.

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 provides excellent parameter semantics that fully compensate for the 0% schema description coverage. For each of the 7 parameters, it explains: 1) invoice_type values and their meanings (out_invoice=customer, etc.), 2) state values (draft, posted, cancel), 3) partner_id purpose (filter by partner), 4) date_from/date_to format (YYYY-MM-DD), and 5) limit/offset defaults and purposes. This adds substantial meaning beyond what the bare schema provides.

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: 'List invoices in Odoo.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_invoice' (which presumably retrieves a single invoice). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools (e.g., 'list_contacts', 'list_products'), though the resource specificity makes the purpose clear.

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 'list_invoices' versus 'get_invoice' (for single invoice retrieval) or 'search_records' (which might offer more flexible searching). There are no explicit when/when-not instructions or alternative tool recommendations.

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