MCP Odoo Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool submits for approval, implying a mutation that changes state and may trigger workflows, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether submission is reversible, expected response time, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place: the purpose statement is essential, and the parameter and return explanations add value without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool.

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 (a mutation with one parameter), no annotations, but an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and parameter, but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines, leaving gaps that reduce 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining the single parameter ('report_id: ID of the expense report to submit'), adding meaning beyond the schema's basic type. With only one parameter, this is sufficient to earn a 4, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., numeric range).

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 action ('submit') and resource ('expense report'), specifying it's 'for approval'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_expense_report' (creation vs. submission) and 'list_expense_reports' (listing vs. submission). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all potential alternatives, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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., that the report must exist via 'create_expense_report' first), exclusions, or contextual triggers. With siblings like 'create_expense_report' and 'list_expense_reports', this lack of differentiation is a significant gap.

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