MCP Odoo Bridge Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is irreversible (a key behavioral trait) and mentions a success message return, but lacks details on error handling, authentication needs, or rate limits. This is adequate but has clear gaps for a destructive operation.

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 core action, followed by structured sections for args and returns. The warning is placed effectively, but the 'Returns' section could be more concise (e.g., merging with the main text). Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 (destructive operation with 2 parameters) and no annotations, the description is moderately complete: it covers purpose, parameters, returns, and a critical warning. However, with an output schema present, the return value explanation is redundant, and it lacks context on permissions or error cases, leaving room for improvement.

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 basic meaning for both parameters ('model' as Odoo model name, 'record_id' as ID to delete), which is helpful beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't provide examples, constraints, or format details, keeping it at a baseline level.

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 verb ('Delete') and resource ('a record from Odoo'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_record' or 'create_record' beyond the action name, which prevents a perfect score.

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 'update_record' or 'create_record', nor does it mention prerequisites such as permissions or dependencies. The warning about irreversibility hints at caution but doesn't specify usage contexts or exclusions.

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