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 via 'limit' and 'offset' and filtering by 'project_id', but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's read-only (implied by 'List' but not explicit). This leaves significant 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 well-structured with clear sections for Args and Returns, using bullet-like formatting. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary details, though the 'Returns' section could be more concise by relying on the output schema.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters and return format basics, but lacks behavioral context like auth needs or error cases. The output schema reduces the need for return value details, but more guidance on usage and transparency 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 meaningful context for all three parameters: 'project_id' is described as optional for filtering, 'limit' specifies a default and maximum number, and 'offset' explains pagination. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this compensates well, though it doesn't detail data types or constraints beyond defaults.

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 ('available tasks in Odoo'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_projects' or 'list_timesheets' beyond the resource type, which prevents 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 'search_records' for more complex queries or 'list_projects' for related data, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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