MCP Odoo Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination (limit/offset) and optional filtering, but doesn't address important aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a list tool with 5 parameters, more behavioral context is needed.

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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and uses bullet-point style formatting. Each sentence adds value - the opening statement establishes purpose, and parameter descriptions are efficient. It could be slightly more concise by combining some parameter explanations, but overall it's appropriately sized.

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 list tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, the description covers the basic purpose and parameters adequately. However, it lacks important context about authentication, error handling, and usage scenarios. The presence of an output schema means it doesn't need to explain return values, but more behavioral context would improve completeness.

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?

The description provides clear documentation for all 5 parameters including their optional nature, default values, and specific details like the state enum values (draft, confirm, validate, refuse). Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose and constraints beyond what the bare schema provides.

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 states 'List leave allocations' which clearly indicates the verb (list) and resource (leave allocations). However, it doesn't distinguish this from other list operations on the server (like list_employees, list_leave_types) beyond the resource type. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The server has multiple list tools (e.g., list_employees, list_leave_types) but no indication of which to choose for different scenarios. There's also no mention of prerequisites or when this tool would be inappropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.