Fetch one or multiple Odoo records by ID, specifying the model and optional fields to return. Enables AI agents to retrieve ERP data for decision-making.
Read one or more records by id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | No | Several record ids | |
| model | Yes | Technical model name, e.g. 'res.partner' | |
| fields | No | Fields to return. Omit for all readable fields — prefer naming them. | |
| 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?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'one or more' (clarifying batch behavior) but says nothing about behavior for missing ids, empty results, or record not found — with annotations carrying the main burden, this is adequate but thin.
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 wasted words — the core action and lookup key come first. It is arguably too terse for the batch semantics, but nothing is redundant or padded.
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 simple read tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly sufficient. The one gap is that no output schema exists and the description doesn't characterize the return value, though 'read records by id' makes the expected shape fairly predictable.
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%, so ids, model, fields, and record_id are all documented in the schema itself, including the note that omitting 'fields' returns all readable fields. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 pairs a specific verb ('Read') with a specific resource ('records') and adds the scoping phrase 'by id', which distinguishes it from the sibling search_records. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so a small amount of differentiation is left to inference.
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 explicit when-to-use statement, but the phrase 'by id' implicitly signals this tool is for direct lookups when identifiers are already known, as opposed to search_records or name_search. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.