Lists Odoo connections available to the authenticated client, so MCP clients can identify which instances and tenants they can query before running model, field, or record operations.
List connections accessible to the authenticated client.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Accessible to the authenticated client' adds a useful scoping/auth hint, but nothing is said about return shape, pagination, or whether results are filtered by permissions beyond the ambient auth context.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. It is perhaps too terse to be maximally useful, but nothing in it is wasted.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of behavioral information, and it omits what a 'connection' is (record/webhook/integration?), whether the list is paginated, and what fields each entry has. For a zero-param tool this is adequate to call but not complete.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the schema having no properties is consistent with the description.
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 (list) and resource (connections) with scope limited to the authenticated client. It is distinguishable from connection_test by the name and the 'List' verb, though the description itself doesn't call out that sibling. Clear but without explicit 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 on when to call this versus connection_test or any other sibling. The listing intent is implied by the verb, but there are no conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.