Add a record to Odoo ERP by providing a model and field values, so AI agents can insert data through policy-checked, risk-scored, and audited MCP calls.
Create a record.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model | Yes | Technical model name, e.g. 'res.partner' | |
| values | Yes | Field values |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which is consistent with 'Create', so there is no contradiction. However, the description adds nothing beyond them: no mention of required permissions, validation/constraint failures, side effects (e.g. computed fields, mail/activity triggers), or that it mutates the database.
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?
One sentence with zero waste, but that brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than deliberate concision. Nothing is padded, but nothing is front-loaded that an agent can act on either.
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 required two-parameter mutation with a nested free-form 'values' object and no output schema, the agent still lacks essentials: how field values should be encoded (scalar vs relation commands), which model names are valid, and what is returned on success. The description does not fill any of these gaps.
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 100% (both 'model' and 'values' are documented in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description provides no additional meaning, and notably says nothing about the shape of the free-form 'values' object beyond the schema's 'Field values'.
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 sentence does state a specific verb (Create) and resource (record), but it is effectively a restatement of the tool name create_record and adds no distinguishing detail over siblings like update_record or get_record. It is not misleading, but an agent learns nothing beyond the name.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this instead of update_record, get_record, or execute_method, and no prerequisites or context of use are stated. The agent must infer the routing entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.