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. It implies a read-only operation by using 'List' and mentions pagination behavior via 'limit' and 'offset', which adds some context. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 (2 simple parameters) and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns' in the description), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and return values, though it could benefit from more behavioral context given the lack of annotations.

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, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'limit' controls the 'Maximum number of projects to return' and 'offset' is for 'pagination', providing context not in the schema. Since there are only 2 parameters and the description covers both adequately, it compensates well for the schema gap.

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 available projects in Odoo.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('projects'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_tasks' or 'search_records' that might also retrieve project-related data, though the resource specificity helps.

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 'search_records' (which might offer more flexible filtering) or context for project listing, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.

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