Open a row in an Odoo list or kanban view by index or text match, or target a one2many list inside a form using list_field.
Open a row of the current list/kanban view (0-based index, or text matched against the row content). list_field targets a one2many list inside a form instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scope | No | auto | |
| list_field | No | ||
| index_or_text | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It says 'open' but does not disclose what that entails (e.g., navigation, form opening, side effects, prerequisites like being on a list view, or failure behavior). No mention of errors, permissions, or state changes.
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 two concise sentences with the core action front-loaded. It is efficient, avoids filler, and conveys the essential selection logic and the alternative list_field usage in minimal space.
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?
While an output schema exists (so return values are not needed), the description omits the scope parameter, does not state prerequisites (e.g., being in a list/kanban view) or consequences of opening a row, and does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like open_record. These gaps make it incomplete for an agent to use reliably.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It clarifies index_or_text (index or text match) and list_field (one2many context), but completely ignores the scope parameter, leaving its meaning and default 'auto' unexplained.
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 ('Open a row') and the resource ('current list/kanban view'), and specifies the two ways to select a row (0-based index or text match). It also distinguishes the list_field case for one2many lists inside a form, setting it apart from sibling tools like open_record.
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?
It implies usage in a list/kanban view and explains the list_field condition for forms, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as open_record or click_button. It provides a specific context but no exclusions or clear 'when not to use' guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.