Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• odoo_list_modulesA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the returned fields (name, description, version) but no additional behavioral context such as ordering, pagination, authorization requirements, or potential performance implications. This is acceptable but not rich.

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

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with no filler or redundant wording. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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

  Completeness5/5

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

  This is a simple, parameterless read-only tool with strong annotations and an output schema present. The description provides the core return information (installed modules with name, description, version), which is complete for this level of complexity.

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

  Parameters4/5

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

  The input schema is empty (0 parameters), so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description does not need to compensate for missing schema coverage, and with zero params the baseline score is 4.

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

  Purpose5/5

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

  The description uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the resource ('modules installed on the Odoo instance'), and even lists the returned fields. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and clearly distinct from siblings like odoo_search_read and odoo_create_record.

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

  Usage Guidelines4/5

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

  The tool's purpose is self-evident from the description and name—use it when you need to enumerate installed Odoo modules. While no explicit alternatives are mentioned, the context is clear and there are no exclusions or special conditions. The lack of explicit sibling differentiation is minor because the intent is obvious.

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

• odoo_search_readA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful constraints: the model must be 'allowed' and the limit is bounded to a configured maximum. These go beyond the annotation defaults, providing context about system-imposed boundaries.

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

  Conciseness5/5

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

  Two concise sentences: the first states the purpose, the second explains parameter semantics. No wasted words, all information is relevant and efficiently front-loaded.

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

  Completeness4/5

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

  Given the output schema exists, return values are documented externally. The description covers purpose, parameter meanings, and key constraints (allowed model, bounded limit). It lacks details on optionality (e.g., domain default) and error behavior, but for a read operation with good annotations, this is reasonably complete.

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

  Parameters4/5

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

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the meaning of 'domain' (Odoo search domain list), 'fields' (limits columns), and 'limit'/'offset' (pagination). The 'model' parameter is implied as the target of the read. This covers most parameters meaningfully, though 'model' lacks explicit detail.

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

  Purpose5/5

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

  The description clearly states the tool reads records from an Odoo model, using the specific verb 'read' and naming the resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings: 'odoo_list_modules' lists modules, 'odoo_create_record' creates records, while this tool reads existing records.

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

  Usage Guidelines4/5

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

  The description provides clear context by explaining the parameters and noting the 'allowed' model restriction and bounded limit. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, but the read-only purpose is clear and it lacks exclusion criteria. A 4 is appropriate for clear context without explicit alternatives.

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

• odoo_create_recordA
  4.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  The description reveals the non-obvious two-step behavior where the first call returns a proposal without creating anything, and execution only occurs on the second call with the token. This adds critical context beyond the annotations' simple mutation flag, and there is no contradiction with the annotations.

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

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is three sentences, each serving a purpose: statement of function, explanation of the first step, and explanation of the execution step. It is concise with no redundancy.

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

  Completeness5/5

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

  Given the complexity of the human-approval flow, the description fully explains the protocol: what the first call returns, and what the second call requires. The presence of an output schema likely covers proposal details, so the description is complete for selection and invocation.

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

  Parameters4/5

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

  The description adds essential semantics for the 'approval_token' parameter, explaining its role in the two-step flow and requiring identical 'model'/'values' for execution. While 'model' and 'values' are not deeply elaborated, the token lifecycle is fully clarified, compensating for the 0% schema description coverage.

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

  Purpose5/5

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

  The description clearly states the tool creates a record in an Odoo model, and specifies it is for write operations with human approval. This distinguishes it from sibling read/list tools by explicitly naming the write action and the approval requirement.

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

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  The description provides explicit usage guidance: call without 'approval_token' to obtain a proposal, then have a human resend with the token to execute. It also specifies that the model must be 'allowed for writing', giving a clear precondition for use.

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