update_recordModify existing records in any Odoo model by providing the model name, record IDs, and a dictionary of field values to change.
Update existing records in an Odoo model.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | Yes | List of record IDs to update | |
| model | Yes | Model name (e.g., 'res.partner') | |
| values | Yes | Dictionary of field values to update |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / ids / descriptionAdded value: +"List of record IDs to update"Input schema / properties / model / descriptionAdded value: +"Model name (e.g., 'res.partner')"Input schema / properties / values / descriptionAdded value: +"Dictionary of field values to update"v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare idempotentHint=true, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden. It says 'existing records', hinting that nonexistent IDs are not created, but says nothing about batch semantics, partial failure behavior, or required access rights 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 the verb and resource front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the same under-specification captured in other dimensions.
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 generic Odoo write tool with nested values and no destructive/read-only annotation, the description leaves out error behavior, permission needs, and return expectations. The presence of an output schema removes the need to describe return values, but the behavioral gaps remain.
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%, so model, ids, and values are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 states a specific verb and resource (update existing records) and names the domain (Odoo model), so it is clearly distinguishable from create_record, delete_record, and read_records by verb alone. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, but the verb is unambiguous.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_record or execute_method, and no prerequisites (permissions, valid model names) are mentioned. The agent must infer usage entirely from the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.