odoo-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

odoo_aggregate

Aggregate Odoo records by groupby, counting and summing specified measures. Supports date groupings like month or year, replacing read_group for Odoo 18.

Instructions

Nombre et somme(s) par groupby. Remplace read_group (retire du RPC en Odoo 18). measures : liste JSON de champs a sommer. Date : date_order:month (day/week/quarter/year).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "model": "<model>",
      "groupby": "<groupby>"
    },
    "name": "odoo_aggregate"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`model`	Yes
`domain`	No	[]
`groupby`	Yes
`measures`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.9.0Aug 11, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explains measures format but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires specific permissions, or any side effects. It mentions the legacy replacement but not other behavioral aspects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is succinct, front-loads the purpose, and includes practical param hints without fluff. Four short clauses cover purpose, legacy context, and key parameter guidance.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has 4 parameters and no annotations. The description covers core aggregation and a date example, but omits domain usage, read-only confirmation, and edge cases. The presence of an output schema partially compensates, but overall it's minimal.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has zero descriptions, so the description's notes on `measures` as a JSON list and the date format example are valuable. However, it does not explain `domain` or `groupby` formats, leaving some parameters underdocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool computes count and sum(s) grouped by a field ('Nombre et somme(s) par groupby'). It distinguishes itself by mentioning it replaces read_group and from siblings like odoo_count and odoo_search. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'aggregates', using a nominal phrase.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives context that it replaces read_group, which is helpful for Odoo users. It implies usage for grouped aggregation but doesn't explicitly state when to use it over odoo_count or odoo_search, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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