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 the tool updates an entry but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether updates are reversible, error handling, or rate limits. The mention of 'Update confirmation' in returns is minimal and doesn't detail the response format or side effects.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by structured Arg and Return sections. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating the format details into the parameter list more seamlessly.

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 as a mutation tool with no annotations and an output schema present, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. The output schema likely handles return value details, so the description's minimal return statement is acceptable, but overall gaps remain for effective agent use.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics by explaining each parameter's purpose and format (e.g., 'date_entry: New date in YYYY-MM-DD format'), which goes beyond the schema's basic titles. However, it doesn't cover constraints like valid hour ranges or description length limits.

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 as 'Update an existing timesheet entry,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_expense' or 'create_timesheet,' though the context is reasonably clear from the tool name.

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 'create_timesheet' or 'delete_timesheet.' It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing timesheet entry, and doesn't mention any exclusions or best practices for usage.

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