aidoo_readRead specific Odoo records by their IDs. Provide the model and a list of IDs to get the data, with optional field selection to control the response.
Read specific Odoo records by their IDs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | Yes | ||
| model | Yes | ||
| fields | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, and the description is consistent with them. It does not add behavioral context beyond those annotations, such as field-selection side effects or behavior on missing records, but the annotations cover the core safety profile.
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 with no filler or redundancy. It is concise while still naming the action, target, and primary input.
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?
For a tool with three parameters, zero schema-level descriptions, and several sibling tools, this description is too thin. It does not explain the required 'model' parameter, the optional 'fields' behavior, or the distinction from query/search tools. The existing annotations and output schema reduce but do not eliminate this gap.
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 by explaining parameters. It only mentions IDs and does not describe what 'model' means, what format fields expects, or how the optional fields parameter behaves. This leaves the agent dependent on underspecified property names.
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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Read specific Odoo records by their IDs.' It conveys exactly what the tool does and implies the core input (IDs), though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like aidoo_query.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to prefer aidoo_query for searching or filtered reads. No exclusions or decision criteria are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.