Search and read Odoo records via web session with field selection, domain filters, pagination, and ordering.
Search and read records via web session (frontend web_search_read format). Supports field specification, domain, limit, offset, order.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| model | Yes | Model name | |
| order | No | ||
| domain | No | ||
| fields | Yes | ||
| offset | No | ||
| connection | No | default |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It indicates a read operation (search and read) and lists supported features (field specification, domain, limit, offset, order), but omits details like authentication requirements, performance implications, or response format.
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 description is concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It efficiently conveys core functionality without fluff, though a slightly more structured format could improve readability.
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?
Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the 'connection' parameter, return format, or how this tool differs from similar siblings like odoo_search_read.
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 low (14%), so the description should compensate. It mentions 'field specification, domain, limit, offset, order', which maps to some parameters, but adds no format or usage details beyond the schema. The 'connection' parameter is not addressed.
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 clearly states 'Search and read records via web session' with specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'odoo_search_read', which likely has similar functionality.
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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like odoo_read, odoo_search, or odoo_search_read. The agent has no basis for choosing this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.