Skip to main content
Glama

ppm_change_request_approve

Approve a change request under review and automatically create a baseline snapshot.

Instructions

Approve a Change Request under review; creates a baseline snapshot.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cr_idYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The MCP tool handler for 'ppm_change_request_approve'. Calls Odoo's 'action_approve' on the 'ppm.change.request' model and returns the updated record state.
    @mcp.tool()
    def ppm_change_request_approve(cr_id: int) -> dict[str, Any]:
        """Approve a Change Request under review; creates a baseline snapshot."""
        client().call_action("ppm.change.request", "action_approve", [cr_id])
        return _read_state("ppm.change.request", cr_id, _CR_FIELDS)
  • The tool is registered with the MCP server via the @mcp.tool() decorator on line 176.
    @mcp.tool()
  • The schema defines _CR_FIELDS which are the fields returned by the handler after approval.
    _CR_FIELDS = ["name", "state", "project_id", "change_type", "priority", "initiator_id"]
  • The 'call_action' helper on OdooClient that invokes the button method on the Odoo model.
    def call_action(self, model: str, method: str, ids: list[int]) -> Any:
        """Invoke an `action_*` button method on the given record ids."""
        return self.execute_kw(model, method, [ids])
  • The '_read_state' helper reads the updated record state after the action is performed.
    def _read_state(model: str, rec_id: int, fields: list[str]) -> dict[str, Any]:
        rows = client().read(model, [rec_id], fields)
        if not rows:
            raise ValueError(f"{model} id={rec_id} not found")
        return rows[0]
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses a side effect (snapshot creation) but does not mention permissions, reversibility, state transitions, or what happens after approval. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the action and key side effect. It is not verbose, but could include one more sentence on parameter without losing conciseness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a mutation tool with no annotations and a simple parameter, the description lacks prerequisites, state transition details, and parameter explanation. The presence of an output schema partially compensates for return value documentation, but overall completeness is low.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no explanation for the 'cr_id' parameter. The parameter remains undocumented beyond its type and requirement.

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 action 'Approve' on resource 'Change Request' and adds a distinct behavioral detail ('creates a baseline snapshot'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ppm_change_request_reject, as approval is the opposite action.

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 phrase 'under review' implies the change request must be in that state, but no explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ppm_change_request_reject. Usage context is implied, not explicit.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/wethti/qod-ppm-odoo-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server