odoo-mcp

by JamiTheS

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

odoo_create

Create a new record in Odoo by specifying the model and a JSON object of field values. Use after enabling write access.

Instructions

Créer un enregistrement. values est un objet JSON, ex. '{"name":"ACME"}'.

Bloqué tant que odoo_enable_write n'a pas été appelé.

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>",
      "values": "<values>"
    },
    "name": "odoo_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`model`	Yes
`values`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.9.0Aug 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a critical behavior: operation is blocked until odoo_enable_write is invoked. It also provides an example of the values format. It doesn't mention success/return behavior, but an output schema exists, reducing the need to describe return values.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and example, followed by the prerequisite. No filler or redundant content.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The description covers the core purpose, parameter example, and prerequisite. With an output schema present, it needn't explain return values. Missing details like model naming conventions or error handling are minor given the simplicity of the tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains `values` as a JSON object with a concrete example, which adds meaning beyond the bare string type. The `model` parameter is not described, but its purpose is obvious from the name and context.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states 'Créer un enregistrement' (create a record) with a verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling write/update/delete tools by specifying creation. The example '{"name":"ACME"}' further clarifies the action.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear context: it creates a record and requires odoo_enable_write to have been called first. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like odoo_write or odoo_unlink, so it lacks explicit exclusions or 'when-not' guidance.

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