create_recordCreate new records in an Odoo model. Provide field values as a dictionary for a single record or a list of dictionaries for batch creation.
Create new record(s) in an Odoo model.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model | Yes | Model name (e.g., 'res.partner') | |
| values | Yes | Dictionary of field values, or list of dicts for batch creation |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / model / descriptionAdded value: +"Model name (e.g., 'res.partner')"Input schema / properties / values / descriptionAdded value: +"Dictionary of field values, or list of dicts for batch creation"v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full behavioral burden. It never states required permissions, whether created records can be rolled back, how validation errors from Odoo constraints surface, or what a partial batch failure does — significant gaps for a mutation tool.
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?
A single short sentence with no padding, and the verb/resource are front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined economy.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with zero annotations and a write operation, the description should disclose at least side effects, permission needs, or batch error behavior; it discloses none of these.
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 100%, with 'model' and 'values' both documented in the schema (including the batch list option), so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing beyond restating 'record(s)' and 'model', which the schema already covers more precisely.
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 ('Create') and resource ('record(s) in an Odoo model'), making the operation immediately identifiable. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like update_record or delete_record, but the name/verb pairing is unambiguous enough for selection.
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?
The description offers no when-to-use guidance: no mention of choosing create_record over update_record, no context on when to batch-create versus single-create, and no prerequisites. The '(s)' hints batch capability but does not say when to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.