boondmanager-mcp-server

Supprimer une absence

boond_absences_delete

Destructive

Permanently delete an absence request from BoondManager after verifying its ID. Use only when removal is required, not status changes; irreversible without recovery.

Instructions

Supprime définitivement un(e) demande d'absence de BoondManager.

Quand : uniquement sur demande explicite de l'utilisateur, et après avoir vérifié l'ID avec boond_absences_get. Plutôt que : boond_absences_update pour désactiver ou changer l'état d'un enregistrement sans le détruire — c'est presque toujours l'intention réelle.

⚠️ Irréversible, sans corbeille côté API.
Si le client MCP annonce la capacité elicitation, une confirmation est demandée à l'utilisateur final et un refus annule l'appel (structuredContent.deleted: false + reason) ; sinon la suppression part directement.

Returns : { id, deleted, reason? } — vérifier deleted, qui vaut false en cas de refus utilisateur.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Identifiant unique de l'entité BoondManager (numérique)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`reason`	No	Présent quand la suppression n'a pas eu lieu (ex: refus utilisateur)
`deleted`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv2.12.2Aug 14, 2026

removedInput schema / $schema

Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"

removedOutput schema / $schema

Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"

Changed4 schema fields changedv2.7.0Jun 19, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / id / description

Previous value: -"Identifiant unique de l'entité BoondManager"New value: +"Identifiant unique de l'entité BoondManager (numérique)"

removedInput schema / properties / id / minLength
```
Removed value: -1
```
addedInput schema / properties / id / pattern
```
Added value: +"^\\d+$"
```

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "deleted": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "id": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "reason": {
+      "description": "Présent quand la suppression n'a pas eu lieu (ex: refus utilisateur)",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "id",
+    "deleted"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv2.1.0May 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Although destructiveHint is already true, the description adds meaningful behavioral nuance: deletion is irreversible with no trashbin on the API side, an elicitation-capable MCP client will request user confirmation and can return deleted:false with a reason, and otherwise the deletion proceeds immediately. This enriches the annotations rather than merely repeating them.

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 compact and front-loaded, starting with a clear one-sentence purpose, then using bullets for usage conditions, alternatives, safety warnings, and return semantics. Every section contributes necessary information with no filler or repetition.

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 single-parameter destructive delete tool with annotations and an output schema, this description is complete: it defines the trigger condition, the safer alternative, the irreversible behavior, the confirmation mechanism, and the meaning of the response field. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly appears to be missing.

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 single id parameter is fully documented in the input schema with a numeric pattern and description, giving 100% coverage. The description does not add much parameter-specific meaning beyond advising ID verification with boond_absences_get, which is operational context but not new syntax or constraints.

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 precise verb and resource: 'Supprime définitivement un(e) demande d'absence de BoondManager.' It then explicitly contrasts this tool with boond_absences_update, making it easy for an agent to distinguish destructive deletion from non-destructive state changes.

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 that the tool should only be used when the user explicitly asks to delete and after the ID has been verified via boond_absences_get. The 'Plutôt que' section names boond_absences_update as the preferred alternative when only disabling or modifying an absence is desired, so the when-not-to-use guidance is explicit.

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

Deploy Server