Permanently removes one or more records by model and ID(s) from an Odoo ERP, enabling irreversible data cleanup through policy-checked tool calls.
Delete one or more records. Irreversible.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | No | Several record ids | |
| model | Yes | Technical model name, e.g. 'res.partner' | |
| record_id | No | One record id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the dangerous nature is known structurally. The description's 'Irreversible' adds a small amount of context (permanence, no undo), but says nothing about permissions, cascading effects on related records, or partial-failure behavior for batch deletes.
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?
Two short sentences, zero filler, with the mutating action stated first and the irreversibility caveat immediately after. Nothing is buried or redundant.
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 three-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers the essentials but leaves gaps: access requirements, the single-vs-batch id exclusivity rule, and the consequences of deleting a model with linked records are all unaddressed.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description's 'one or more records' actively explains the relationship between the two mutually exclusive inputs (record_id vs ids) in a way the schema alone does not spell out.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Delete ... records') and clarifies cardinality ('one or more'), so the agent can distinguish it from create_record/update_record in the sibling list. It does not name the alternatives explicitly, but the operation is unambiguous.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never references alternatives such as update_record or the read tools. 'Irreversible' is a warning rather than usage routing, so the agent must infer context on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.