Skip to main content
Glama
fauguste

boondmanager-mcp-server

by fauguste
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Rechercher des avantages

boond_advantages_search
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search BoondManager benefits by keywords or resource ID to locate meal vouchers, health insurance, vehicles, bonuses, and other resource-related perks.

Instructions

Recherche des avantages (tickets restaurant, mutuelle, véhicule, primes...) dans BoondManager, avec filtre optionnel par ressource.

Plutôt que : boond_resources_advantages quand on part d'une ressource précise.

Args:

  • keywords (string, optional): Termes de recherche

  • resourceId (string, optional): Filtrer par ID ressource

  • page, pageSize: Pagination

Returns: Liste des avantages correspondants.

  • 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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoNuméro de page (max: 100)
fieldsNoProjection : attributs à afficher par résultat (ex: ['title','updateDate']). Absent = résumé standard. Noms inconnus ignorés.
keywordsNoMots-clés de recherche
pageSizeNoRésultats par page
resourceIdNoFiltrer par ID ressource

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. Changed1 schema field changedv2.9.0
    • 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"
+}
  3. First observedv2.1.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so no extra safety disclosure is needed. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: the fields projection is MCP-side, never transmitted to the API, unknown names are ignored, and it is recommended for large pages.

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: purpose and routing first, then a compact Args block, then a short return note and a focused explanation of the one non-obvious parameter. Every sentence contributes to correct invocation.

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 read-only search tool with five optional parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the return type, the main filters, pagination, and the non-obvious fields behavior. Annotations cover safety and idempotency, so nothing critical 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics for the 'fields' parameter: it clarifies that the projection is handled MCP-side, is not sent to the API, replaces the summary, ignores unknown names, and is intended for large result pages. This goes beyond the schema's brief wording.

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 action and object ('Recherche des avantages ... dans BoondManager') and gives concrete examples of what counts as an avantage. It also names the sibling tool boond_resources_advantages, which helps an agent distinguish between the two without inspecting schemas.

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?

It explicitly contrasts this tool with boond_resources_advantages and gives the context ('quand on part d'une ressource précise') where the routing choice matters. It also documents optional keyword and resourceId filters plus pagination, which is enough guidance for selecting and invoking the tool.

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