boondmanager-mcp-server

Rechercher des comptes utilisateurs

boond_accounts_search

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search and list BoondManager user accounts by keywords with pagination. Retrieve user IDs from names or enumerate accounts, returning concise summaries per user.

Instructions

Liste et recherche les comptes utilisateurs de BoondManager, par mots-clés et pagination.

Quand : pour retrouver l'ID d'un(e) compte utilisateur à partir de son nom, ou pour énumérer les comptes utilisateurs existant(e)s. Plutôt que : boond_accounts_get si l'ID est déjà connu — la recherche ne renvoie qu'un résumé d'une ligne par compte utilisateur.

Returns : page de résumés (ID + libellé principal), plus structuredContent.total = nombre total côté BoondManager. Lecture seule.

fields : projection côté MCP, jamais transmise à l'API — remplace le résumé par les seuls attributs listés (noms inconnus ignorés). À utiliser sur les grosses pages.
Pagination : pageSize 1–500 (défaut 30), page 1–100 — au-delà : refus, affiner les filtres.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No	Numéro de page (défaut: 1, max: 100)
`fields`	No	Projection : attributs à afficher par résultat (ex: ['title','updateDate']). Absent = résumé standard. Noms inconnus ignorés.
`keywords`	No	Mots-clés de recherche (nom, email, compétences...)
`pageSize`	No	Nombre de résultats par page (max: 500, défaut: 30)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`count`	Yes	Nombre d'éléments retournés sur cette page
`items`	Yes
`total`	No	Nombre total de résultats côté BoondManager

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#"

Changed1 schema field changedv2.9.0Aug 3, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / fields

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Projection : attributs à afficher par résultat (ex: ['title','updateDate']). Absent = résumé standard. Noms inconnus ignorés.",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedv2.7.0Jun 19, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "count": {
+      "description": "Nombre d'éléments retournés sur cette page",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "items": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": false,
+        "properties": {
+          "attributes": {
+            "additionalProperties": {},
+            "description": "Attributs projetés (présent si `fields` est fourni)",
+            "propertyNames": {
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "type": "object"
+          },
+          "id": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "summary": {
+            "description": "Résumé standard (absent si `fields` est fourni)",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "type": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "total": {
+      "description": "Nombre total de résultats côté BoondManager",
+      "type": "number"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "count",
+    "items"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv2.1.0May 30, 2026

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Even with readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it returns a page of summaries with ID + main label, exposes structuredContent.total as the BoondManager-side total, and is explicitly marked 'Lecture seule'. It also discloses that the fields parameter is an MCP-side projection never transmitted to the API, with unknown names silently ignored — non-obvious behavior an agent needs to know.

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 and front-loaded: purpose first, then usage context, then returns, then parameter-specific notes. It is moderately detailed but every section earns its place, with no filler or tautological repetition of the tool name or title. The use of short labeled sections makes it easy for an agent to scan.

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 search tool with a rich input schema and output schema, the description covers all essential decision factors: when to use it, what it returns, how total is exposed, how fields projection behaves, and what pagination limits apply. There is no obvious missing information an agent would need to invoke it correctly, and the alternatives are explicitly named.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Although the schema already covers all parameters at 100%, the description adds valuable semantics beyond the schema. It clarifies that 'fields' is a client-side projection that replaces the default summary and is ignored if names are unknown, and it spells out the effective pagination boundaries. This extra meaning helps the agent use fields and pagination correctly without inferring them from the schema alone.

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?

Description opens with a clear verb-resource pair: 'Liste et recherche les comptes utilisateurs de BoondManager, par mots-clés et pagination.' It explicitly contrasts with boond_accounts_get, stating that the search only returns a one-line summary per account while the get tool is for known IDs. This makes the tool easily distinguishable from its closest sibling.

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 description gives concrete when-to-use guidance: finding an account ID from a name or enumerating existing accounts. It also says when not to use it: if the ID is already known, use boond_accounts_get instead. Additional pagination rules ('pageSize 1–500, page 1–100, beyond that refused') strengthen the operational guidance.

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

Deploy Server