Skip to main content
Glama
fauguste

boondmanager-mcp-server

by fauguste
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Rechercher des agences

boond_agencies_search
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search BoondManager agencies by keyword to find an agency's ID or list existing agencies. Returns one-line summaries with ID and main label.

Instructions

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

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

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 sans effet : cette route renvoie toujours la table complète, pageSize et page sont ignorés par l'API — inutile de paginer, tout est déjà là.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoNuméro de page (défaut: 1, max: 100)
fieldsNoProjection : attributs à afficher par résultat (ex: ['title','updateDate']). Absent = résumé standard. Noms inconnus ignorés.
keywordsNoMots-clés de recherche (nom, email, compétences...)
pageSizeNoNombre de résultats par page (max: 500, défaut: 30)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countYesNombre d'éléments retournés sur cette page
itemsYes
totalNoNombre total de résultats côté BoondManager

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv2.12.2
    • removedInput schema / $schema
      Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
    • removedOutput schema / $schema
      Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv2.9.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / fields
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Projection : attributs à afficher par résultat (ex: ['title','updateDate']). Absent = résumé standard. Noms inconnus ignorés.",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
  3. Changed1 schema field changedv2.7.0
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$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"
+}
  4. First observedv2.1.0

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: returns only summaries, reports `structuredContent.total`, warns that pagination parameters are ignored by the API, and explains that `fields` is an MCP-side projection never sent to the API. This goes well beyond the annotations and materially changes how the tool should be invoked.

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: core purpose first, then usage context, then return behavior, then parameter-specific warnings. Every sentence earns its place, and the bullet format makes the critical gotchas easy 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 rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers all the essential operational knowledge: when to use it, what it returns, how `fields` behaves, and that pagination is a no-op. There is no missing information an agent would need to call this tool correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds significant value: it clarifies that `fields` is a local projection, that unknown field names are ignored, that `pageSize` and `page` are ineffective, and that keywords drive the search. This prevents an agent from paginating unnecessarily or assuming the fields parameter is forwarded.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Liste et recherche les agences de BoondManager'. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling `boond_agencies_get`, noting the search returns only a one-line summary per agency, so an agent can immediately tell which tool fits its goal.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: find an agency ID from its name or enumerate agencies. It also names the alternative `boond_agencies_get` and explains why it is preferable when the ID is already known. This is direct, actionable routing information.

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