Run allowlisted public Odoo model methods, such as confirming a sales order, with policy checks, risk scoring, and throttling before ERP changes.
Call a public model method, e.g. sale.order.action_confirm. Restricted by policy.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | No | Positional args; record ids first | |
| model | Yes | Technical model name, e.g. 'res.partner' | |
| kwargs | No | ||
| method | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds one piece of context beyond that — execution is 'restricted by policy' — but never explains what the policy allows, whether the call is reversible, or the risk of invoking arbitrary model methods. Moderate added value against an already-informative annotation set.
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 clauses, front-loaded with the action and example, with no filler. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity borders on under-specification for a tool that executes arbitrary server-side methods.
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 destructive, policy-gated, arbitrary-method executor with four parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits what the call returns, which methods are permitted, and how the positional args/kwargs map to the target method — information an agent needs to invoke it 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?
Schema coverage is 50%: 'args' and 'model' are described in the schema, while 'method' and 'kwargs' are not. The description's example clarifies the expected dotted method format, partially compensating, but 'kwargs' remains undocumented in both places.
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 (call) and resource (a public model method) with a concrete example ('sale.order.action_confirm'), which tells an agent this is a generic method-invocation escape hatch. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the specific CRUD siblings (create_record, update_record, delete_record), so sibling differentiation is only implied.
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?
'Restricted by policy' hints at a gate but never states when to prefer this over the specific sibling tools (create_record, update_record, call_onchange, etc.) or when it is forbidden. No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.