MCP Odoo Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers limited behavioral insight. It mentions 'partial match with ilike' for the value parameter, which adds some context on search behavior. However, it doesn't disclose critical traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or what happens with invalid models/fields. For a search tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this is inadequate.

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 a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. It's appropriately sized—each sentence adds value, such as explaining the partial match behavior. Minor improvements could include briefer formatting, but it's efficient and front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 (5 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers parameter semantics well and mentions return values, but lacks behavioral context like safety, performance, or error handling. The output schema likely details the return structure, so the description doesn't need to elaborate on that, but overall it's adequate with clear gaps in usage and transparency.

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 semantic value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains each parameter: 'model' as technical model name with examples, 'field' as the field to search on, 'value' with partial match behavior, and 'limit'/'offset' with defaults and pagination context. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, making parameters clear and actionable.

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 searches records in Odoo models with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('records in any Odoo model'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_contact' or 'list_contacts' by being a generic search across any model rather than fetching specific entity types. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other search-like siblings (none are present in the list).

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 prerequisites (e.g., authentication), when not to use it (e.g., for simple lookups by ID), or compare it to sibling tools like 'get_contact' for specific entity retrieval. Usage is implied by the generic search capability but lacks explicit context.

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