Retrieves specific Odoo records by ID from a chosen model and connection, letting you read selected fields for inspection, validation, or downstream processing.
Read selected Odoo record IDs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | Yes | ||
| model | Yes | ||
| fields | No | ||
| connection_id | Yes |
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 must carry the full behavioral burden. 'Read' suggests a non-mutating operation, but it does not disclose permissions, missing-ID behavior, default field handling, or the shape of the result.
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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler. It is concise, though the brevity contributes to broader under-specification rather than making the definition complete.
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 four-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is far too thin. It establishes the broad intent but omits parameter meaning, usage boundaries, and behavioral details an agent needs to invoke it reliably.
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 0%, so the description needs to explain the four parameters. It only vaguely maps to 'ids' and says nothing about connection_id, model, or the optional fields parameter.
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 gives a specific verb and resource: reading selected Odoo records by ID. It broadly distinguishes this from search-style siblings like record_search, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or clarify whether the return is records or just IDs.
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?
It gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of record_search, record_count, or the create/update siblings. The only usage signal is the phrase 'selected ... record IDs,' which is implied rather than explained.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.