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 adds important context about permission requirements ('requires special permission in Odoo settings'), which is valuable. However, it doesn't describe potential side effects, error handling, or what types of methods might be destructive versus read-only, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding for a tool that can execute arbitrary code.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with the core purpose, lists parameters clearly, states the return value, adds a critical warning, and provides a concrete example. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 (executing arbitrary methods with 5 parameters) and no annotations, the description does well by explaining parameters, providing an example, and noting permission requirements. The presence of an output schema means it doesn't need to explain return values. However, for such a powerful tool, more behavioral context about safety and limitations would be beneficial.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, which it does effectively by listing all 5 parameters with brief explanations. It clarifies that model and method are required, record_ids is optional, and args/kwargs are for method arguments. The example further illustrates how parameters work together, adding meaningful context beyond the bare schema.

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 tool's purpose: 'Execute a custom method on an Odoo model.' It specifies the verb ('execute') and resource ('custom method on an Odoo model'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_record or update_record that perform specific operations rather than arbitrary method execution.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: for executing custom methods on Odoo models, with an example showing a specific use case (confirming a sale order). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives among siblings, though the example implies it's for actions beyond basic CRUD operations.

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