Skip to main content
Glama
fauguste

boondmanager-mcp-server

by fauguste
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Creer une demande d'absence

boond_absences_create

Create a leave request for a resource by providing dates, absence type, and optional note. The request is submitted in its initial state for BoondManager validation.

Instructions

Crée une demande d'absence (congés, RTT, maladie…) pour une ressource.

Quand : pour poser une absence au nom d'une ressource identifiée par son ID. Plutôt que : boond_absences_update pour modifier une demande déjà déposée.

  • Le détail est porté par absencesPeriods ; si le tableau est omis, une période unique est déduite de startDate/endDate.

  • state est soumis au workflow de validation BoondManager : la demande part dans son état initial, elle n'est pas validée par cet appel.

  • Écriture non idempotente — l'API ne déduplique pas deux demandes sur les mêmes dates.

Returns : confirmation et fiche de la demande créée.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteNoCommentaire / motif
stateNoÉtat de la demande (0=en attente, 1=validé, 2=refusé...)
typeOfYesLibellé de l'absence (congé payé, RTT, maladie, sans solde...)
endDateYesDate de fin (YYYY-MM-DD)
durationNoDurée en jours ; calculée automatiquement si absente
startDateYesDate de début (YYYY-MM-DD)
resourceIdYesID de la ressource en absence
absencesPeriodsNoPériodes d'absence Boond brutes
workUnitTypeReferenceNoRéférence du type d'unité d'absence, défaut 1

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.12.2
    • removedInput schema / $schema
      Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
  2. Changed4 schema fields changedv2.8.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / absencesPeriods
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Périodes d'absence Boond brutes",
+  "items": {
+    "additionalProperties": {},
+    "propertyNames": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / duration
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Durée en jours ; calculée automatiquement si absente",
+  "type": "number"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / typeOf / description
      Previous value: -"Type d'absence (congé payé, RTT, maladie, sans solde...)"New value: +"Libellé de l'absence (congé payé, RTT, maladie, sans solde...)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / workUnitTypeReference
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Référence du type d'unité d'absence, défaut 1",
+  "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+  "minimum": 1,
+  "type": "integer"
+}
  3. First observedv2.1.0

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavioral traits: the state parameter is subject to BoondManager's validation workflow and the request starts in its initial state, and the write is explicitly non-idempotent with no deduplication. This is valuable context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 well-structured with clear 'Quand', 'Plutôt que', bullet points, and a Returns line. Every section earns its place, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a 9-parameter creation tool without an output schema, the description adequately covers the key behaviors, parameter subtleties, non-idempotence, workflow implications, and return value. The schema documents the remaining parameter details, so no critical context is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: absencesPeriods can be omitted and a single period is inferred from startDate/endDate, and state is not directly applied but submitted to workflow. This raises the score above baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Crée une demande d'absence' for a resource, and lists absence types. It also explicitly contrasts this with boond_absences_update, making the tool's purpose and scope immediately distinguishable from its siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The 'Quand' section states exactly when to use the tool: to submit an absence for a resource identified by ID. The 'Plutôt que' section explicitly names boond_absences_update as the alternative for modifying an existing request, giving clear routing guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools