Get field metadata for any Odoo model via fields_get. Specify a model and optional attributes to inspect field types, properties, and structures for integrations or development.
Inspect field metadata for an Odoo model using fields_get.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model | Yes | Technical Odoo model name, for example res.partner | |
| attributes | No | Field metadata attributes to return |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description reinforces the read-only nature with 'Inspect' but adds no further behavioral details such as auth requirements, return shape, or edge cases. With annotations present, this is adequate.
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 a single front-loaded sentence: verb, resource, and method. It has no filler or redundant elaboration.
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?
This is a simple introspection tool with two well-described parameters and strong annotations. The description plus schema provide everything needed for correct invocation: the model name is required, attributes are optional, and the operation is read-only and non-destructive.
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 100%: both 'model' and 'attributes' have meaningful descriptions. The tool description does not add parameter-level detail, but the schema already carries that burden, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb 'Inspect' and a clear resource 'field metadata for an Odoo model', and it names the underlying method fields_get. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on records (odoo_search_read, odoo_create, odoo_write, odoo_unlink).
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 makes the tool's context clear: it is for inspecting metadata, not for reading or modifying records. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the purpose is sufficiently clear that an agent can route to it correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.