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 that it returns a list of entries and includes pagination parameters (limit/offset), but fails to describe critical behaviors such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether the operation is read-only (implied by 'List' but not explicit). For a tool with 6 parameters and no 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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a parameter breakdown in a clear 'Args/Returns' format. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information 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 moderate complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is largely complete. It covers all parameters thoroughly and notes the return type, though it could benefit from more behavioral context (e.g., permissions or error handling). The presence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return values, but some gaps remain in usage guidance.

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 clearly explains each parameter's purpose, format (e.g., 'YYYY-MM-DD' for dates), default values, and optionality. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, making parameter usage clear to the agent.

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 ('existing timesheet entries'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_timesheet_summary_by_employee' or 'list_tasks', which might also involve timesheet-related data, so it doesn't achieve full sibling differentiation.

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 like 'get_timesheet_summary_by_employee' or 'search_records'. It lacks any context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the parameter list alone.

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