Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• odoo_search_readA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds a genuine behavioral detail beyond those annotations: the operation runs with the permissions of the configured Odoo API user. There is no contradiction between the description and the annotations.

  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 one tight sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core behavior and model scope, making it instantly scannable while still covering the most important distinguishing information.

  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 generic read tool with six parameters and no output schema, the description omits filtering semantics, field selection, pagination, ordering, and usage boundaries with siblings. An agent would need substantial external knowledge of Odoo to use this tool confidently beyond a trivial model-only call.

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

  Parameters2/5

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

  Schema description coverage is only 33%, with model and domain described in the schema but limit, order, fields, and offset left undocumented. The tool description itself only adds meaning for the model parameter ('any Odoo model') and does not compensate for the low coverage of the remaining five parameters.

  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 states a specific action ('search and read records') and a clear resource ('any Odoo model'), which immediately distinguishes it from mutating siblings like odoo_create, odoo_write, and odoo_unlink. It also communicates the tool's general applicability across models rather than restricting it to a single model.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  There is no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as odoo_fields_get, nor any explicit statement that this is the read path while create/write/unlink are for mutations. The intended usage must be inferred from the tool name and sibling list rather than from the description.

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

• odoo_writeA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already provide the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds context about permissions, but does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as error handling, side effects, or what happens when IDs do not exist.

  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 a single sentence with no redundant words. It is succinct and front-loads the primary action clearly.

  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 write operation with no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain return values, error behavior, maximum batch limits, or the effect of the idempotency hint. It relies on annotations for safety but lacks operational context for an agent to invoke it correctly in complex scenarios.

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

  Parameters2/5

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

  Only 33% of parameters (model) have schema descriptions. The description implicitly connects 'ids' to 'one or more records', but provides no detail about 'values' or the relationship between parameters. It does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

  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 specific verb 'update' and resource 'Odoo records', which naturally differentiates it from sibling tools like odoo_create (create) and odoo_unlink (delete). It also specifies the scope with 'one or more records'.

  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 usage is implied by the verb 'update' (modifying existing records), and the context of using an Odoo user permissions is mentioned. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over odoo_create or odoo_unlink, nor are alternatives or exclusions named.

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

• odoo_createA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not idempotent. The description adds useful context by stating the operation runs under configured Odoo user permissions, which implies authorization constraints. No contradiction with annotations, but it does not disclose return values, validation behavior, or side effects beyond creation.

  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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and object. Every word earns its place, and the permission context is concise rather than redundant.

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

  Completeness3/5

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

  The description is minimally adequate for an agent to understand the tool creates an Odoo record with the given model and values. However, with no output schema, it does not explain what the tool returns, such as the created record ID, nor does it address required-field handling or error behavior. These are clear gaps.

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

  Parameters2/5

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

  The description does not explain the 'values' parameter beyond what the schema already shows. The schema documents 'model' but leaves 'values' with only a generic object type. Since schema description coverage is only 50%, the description should compensate, but it does not clarify that values are the field-value mapping for the new record.

  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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a record in an Odoo model.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like odoo_write, odoo_unlink, and odoo_search_read by the operation it performs.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description makes it clear the tool is for creating records, which is a clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as odoo_write for updates, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

• odoo_fields_getA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description is not required to repeat that. The description adds the context that it calls fields_get, but it does not disclose return shape, behavior on invalid models, or other operational details beyond the annotation coverage.

  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?

  A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the tool's purpose with no filler. Every word earns its place, and the key differentiator ('field metadata') comes first.

  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?

  For a simple two-parameter introspection tool with full schema coverage and strong safety annotations, the definition is largely complete. The main gaps are no mention of what fields_get returns and no guidance on the 'attributes' parameter behavior when omitted, but these are minor for an agent selecting and invoking this tool.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, with both 'model' and 'attributes' already documented in the input schema. The description adds little beyond restating that this is about field metadata, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

  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 uses a specific verb ('Inspect') with a clear resource ('field metadata for an Odoo model') and names the underlying method (fields_get). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which are CRUD/data operations rather than metadata introspection.

  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?

  Usage context is implied: an agent can infer this tool is for inspecting model schema/field metadata rather than reading or mutating records. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusion guidance.

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

• odoo_unlinkA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already mark the tool as destructive, and the description aligns by saying 'Permanently delete.' It adds useful context beyond annotations: the deletion is permanent and subject to the configured Odoo user's permissions, which clarifies that permission failures are possible.

  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 entire description is one front-loaded sentence: it starts with the core action 'Permanently delete' and then states the object and permission context. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

  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?

  For a two-parameter destructive tool, the description covers the essential behavior, permanence, and permission context. The annotations further supply destructive and non-read-only hints, and no output schema exists, so missing return-value details are not a major gap for an agent selecting and invoking this delete tool.

  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 schema documents 'model' as a technical Odoo model name, but 'ids' lacks a description. The phrase 'one or more Odoo records' helps clarify that 'ids' refers to the target record identifiers, but it does not add much beyond what the schema and parameter names already imply. With only 50% schema description coverage, this partial clarification is adequate but not rich.

  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 states a specific verb ('delete') and resource ('Odoo records') with a clear destructive scope. It also differentiates itself from siblings like odoo_create, odoo_write, and odoo_search_read by uniquely indicating a deletion operation.

  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 use case is implied by 'Permanently delete one or more Odoo records,' but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any when-not conditions. It relies on the reader to infer that this is the deletion counterpart to create/write/search operations.

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