MCP Odoo Bridge Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it's a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, error handling (e.g., what happens if the record doesn't exist), rate limits, or performance characteristics. The description is minimal and lacks essential operational context for a tool with parameters.

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: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words. However, the 'useful for looking up references' could be more integrated or omitted if not critical.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is somewhat complete. However, with no annotations and minimal behavioral disclosure, it lacks context on permissions, errors, or usage scenarios. It's adequate but has clear gaps for a read operation in a system with multiple sibling tools.

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?

The description adds basic semantics for the parameters: 'model: The Odoo model name' and 'record_id: The record ID', which clarifies what these inputs represent. However, with 0% schema description coverage, it doesn't fully compensate by explaining format constraints (e.g., valid model names, ID ranges) or examples. The baseline is 3 since it provides some meaning 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: 'Get the display name of a record' with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('display name of a record'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_record' (which likely returns full record data) by focusing on just the display name. The 'useful for looking up references' adds context but doesn't fully differentiate from all siblings.

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. With siblings like 'get_record' (which might include the display name in full data) and 'search_and_read_one' (which might retrieve records with filtering), there's no explicit comparison or when/when-not guidance. The 'useful for looking up references' hints at context but doesn't specify alternatives.

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