Related Servers

The consistent pattern boond_<entity>_<action> and explicit 'Plutôt que' cross-references usually make each tool identifiable, but the set is so large that overlapping access paths exist (e.g. boond_resources_timesheets vs boond_timesheets_search vs boond_resources_times_reports, entity actions tabs vs boond_actions_search, and workflow runbooks vs real data tools). An agent browsing 182 tools will struggle to pick the most direct one despite the helpful descriptions.

Almost all tools follow a predictable boond_<domain>_<operation> snake_case convention, with search/get/create/update/delete repeated consistently across entities. Minor deviations exist: French workflow_* names, times_reports vs timesheets, absences_reports vs absences_search, and custom operations like expenses_default, which prevent a perfect score.

182 tools is an extreme surface for a single MCP server, far beyond the 25+ threshold and into the 50+ mismatch category. The same CRUD boilerplate is repeated across more than twenty entities plus dozens of tab-readers and workflow runbooks, creating an enormous selection burden that would be better split into several domain-scoped servers.

The server covers most core BoondManager entities with full CRUD (candidates, resources, companies, opportunities, projects, invoices, orders, actions, absences, expenses, positionings). However several entities are partial: contracts have only get/create (no search/update/delete), timesheets/deliveries/payments/provider invoices lack update/delete, and many reference tables are read-only, leaving noticeable lifecycle dead ends.