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 states this is a list operation, implying it's likely read-only, but doesn't confirm safety aspects like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, or affects system state. The description mentions pagination via 'limit' and 'offset' but doesn't explain how results are ordered or if there are performance considerations for large datasets.

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 structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations, but it's somewhat verbose with repetitive formatting. Sentences like 'List sale orders (quotations/orders).' are efficient, but the Args/Returns sections could be more streamlined. It avoids fluff but isn't optimally concise.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is moderately complete. It explains parameters well and notes the return type ('List of orders'), but lacks behavioral context like error handling, authentication needs, or performance limits. The output schema existence reduces the need to detail return values, but more operational guidance would improve completeness.

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 value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose: 'state' with its mapping to order types, 'partner_id' as a customer filter, date parameters for ranges, and 'limit'/'offset' for pagination with defaults. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't cover format details like date validation or state enum constraints.

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 sale orders (quotations/orders).' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('sale orders'), with helpful clarification about what constitutes a sale order ('quotations/orders'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_sale_order' or 'search_records,' which would be needed 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_sale_order' (for retrieving a single order) or 'search_records' (which might offer different filtering capabilities). There's no context about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or exclusions.

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