odoo-safe-mcp

odoo_count

Read-onlyIdempotent

Count Odoo records that match a specified domain, enabling read-only verification of record totals without modifying data.

Instructions

Count Odoo records matching a domain. Read-only.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "model": "<model>"
    },
    "name": "odoo_count"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`model`	Yes
`domain`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv3.0.0Oct 22, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' merely restates structured data rather than adding context. Nothing is said about domain parsing tolerance, performance on large models, or whether an empty domain counts everything.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. The trailing 'Read-only' duplicates the annotations and is the one part that does not earn its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so the return value needs no explanation, but the two parameters — especially the ambiguous domain format and the required model identifier — are left entirely undocumented. For a tool whose whole contract hinges on domain syntax, this leaves a critical gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and does not. It mentions the domain as a filter but gives no syntax for the anyOf array-or-string form, and the required 'model' parameter is never explained (e.g., that it is an Odoo technical model name such as res.partner).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Count Odoo records') with a qualifying scope ('matching a domain'), which distinguishes it from odoo_search (returns records) and odoo_aggregate. It never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No statement of when to use this versus odoo_search or odoo_aggregate, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer that counting is preferable to fetching and tallying manually.

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

Deploy Server