Attach a base64-encoded file to an Odoo record by providing the model, record ID, filename, and file data.
Attach a file (base64) to a record.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model | Yes | Technical model name, e.g. 'res.partner' | |
| filename | Yes | ||
| mimetype | No | ||
| record_id | Yes | One record id | |
| data_base64 | 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=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive write. The description adds only the base64 payload format, which is already implied by the data_base64 parameter name; it says nothing about size limits, permissions, whether an existing attachment is replaced, or what happens on success.
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 short sentence with the action and payload format front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than being a model of density.
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 mutation tool with no output schema, four required parameters, and only 40% schema coverage, the description leaves too much open: no success/return behavior, no permission or size constraints, and no guidance on the optional mimetype. The annotations cover the safety profile but not the operational details.
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 only 40%, so the schema does not carry the load. The description mentions 'base64' and 'record' but does not clarify mimetype (optional), filename semantics, the technical model name convention, or the record_id target beyond what the parameter names already convey.
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 (attach/upload) and resource (a base64 file) plus the target (a record), which is enough to distinguish it from the read-side sibling get_attachment. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling or contrasting upload vs download, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of the alternative get_attachment for retrieval, and no prerequisites such as required access to the target model/record. The agent must infer all routing from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.