odoo-safe-mcp

odoo_read

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read specific Odoo records by ID for safe, read-only access to ERP data.

Instructions

Read specific Odoo records by id. 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>",
      "ids": "<ids>"
    },
    "name": "odoo_read"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ids`	Yes
`model`	Yes
`fields`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv3.0.0Oct 22, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description merely repeats 'Read-only' and adds no further behavioral context such as permissions, handling of missing IDs, field selection behavior, or error behavior.

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?

The description is short and front-loaded with the core operation. The second sentence, 'Read-only,' is redundant with the annotations, which keeps it from being maximally concise, but there is no other wasted text.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool is a simple read operation and has rich annotations plus an output schema, which reduces the description's burden. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the required model parameter and optional fields parameter remain undocumented in both schema and description.

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 carry parameter meaning. 'by id' gives some signal for the ids parameter, but model and fields are left entirely unexplained, including what 'model' means in Odoo or how omitted fields behave.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Read specific Odoo records') and adds scope ('by id'), which distinguishes it from a general search tool. It does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase 'by id' implies the tool should be used when record IDs are already known, which gives minimal contextual guidance. However, it does not state when not to use it, nor does it explicitly compare it with odoo_search or other siblings.

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

Deploy Server