Preview create, write, or unlink operations on Odoo records before executing them, enabling safe validation and error detection without committing changes.
Preview create, write, or unlink without executing it
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model | Yes | ||
| values | No | ||
| context | No | ||
| instance | No | ||
| operation | Yes | ||
| record_ids | No | ||
| values_list | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v1.0.0Input schema / properties / instanceAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Instance"
+}Input schema / properties / values_listAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Values List"
+}v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description matches annotations (readOnly, idempotent) and adds the 'preview without executing' context. No contradiction; behavior is clearly stated.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word serves a purpose.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description omits critical input parameter details (e.g., how to specify records, the difference between values and values_list). The agent needs more guidance to use the tool correctly.
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 provides no parameter details. The agent cannot determine what 'values', 'values_list', 'record_ids', etc., mean, severely limiting correct invocation.
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 previews create/write/unlink operations without execution. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from siblings like 'execute_approved_write' or 'validate_write'.
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 implies use for dry-running operations without committing. It could explicitly say when not to use (e.g., when execution is needed), but the context from sibling names helps.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/erpipe-org/mcp-odoo'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server