odooclaw-mcp

odoo_get_model_schema

Retrieve the schema and field definitions for any Odoo model, such as 'res.partner' or 'account.move', to debug field searches or understand model structure.

Instructions

Retrieve the fields and schema for a given Odoo model (e.g. 'res.partner'). Very useful if a field search fails.

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": {
      "payload": "<payload>"
    },
    "name": "odoo_get_model_schema"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`payload`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.2.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Retrieve' implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication needs, output format, or potential side effects. The description adds minimal value beyond the name.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and adding a usage hint. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers the main purpose and a common use case ('when field search fails'). It could briefly mention what the returned schema contains (e.g., field names and types), but it is still adequate.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema already provides detailed descriptions for both parameters (model and sender_id). The description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema offers. With schema coverage at 100% (both params described), baseline is 3.

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's purpose: 'Retrieve the fields and schema for a given Odoo model'. It uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('fields and schema'), and provides an example model ('res.partner'). This is distinct from sibling tools which are primarily CRUD or specific business operations.

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 description gives a usage hint: 'Very useful if a field search fails.' This provides some context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools. More detailed guidance on prerequisites or alternatives would improve the score.

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

Deploy Server