boondmanager-mcp-server

Créer un(e) société

boond_companies_create

Create a company record in BoondManager to add new clients or partners, returning the generated ID and full profile for direct use in subsequent calls.

Instructions

Crée un(e) société dans BoondManager.

Quand : pour ajouter un(e) société inexistant(e). Plutôt que : boond_companies_update pour modifier un enregistrement existant, et boond_companies_search d'abord pour vérifier qu'il n'existe pas déjà.

Écriture réelle et non idempotente : deux appels identiques créent deux enregistrements (l'API ne déduplique pas).
Les ID de relations et les états/types sont des ID numériques BoondManager, à résoudre au préalable (recherches d'entités, boond://dictionary/*).

Returns : confirmation, ID créé, et la fiche complète. structuredContent.id est réutilisable directement pour chaîner un appel.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`city`	No	Ville
`name`	Yes	Nom de la société
`note`	No	Notes
`siret`	No	Numéro SIRET
`state`	No	État de la société
`email1`	No	Email de la société
`phone1`	No	Téléphone
`country`	No	Pays
`website`	No	Site web

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No	Identifiant de l'entité créée/modifiée
`type`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv2.15.0Sep 10, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / email1 / pattern

Previous value: -"^(?!\\.)(?!.*\\.\\.)([A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-\\.]*)[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@([A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$"New value: +"^(?:[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]+\\.)*[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]*[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@(?:[A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$"

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 changedv2.7.0Jun 19, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "id": {
+      "description": "Identifiant de l'entité créée/modifiée",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "type": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv2.1.0May 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description explicitly states that the operation is a real write and non-idempotent, meaning two identical calls create two records, and the API does not deduplicate. It also notes that relation IDs and state/type IDs are BoondManager numeric IDs that need to be resolved beforehand, which is crucial for correct invocation. While annotations do not include a readOnlyHint (it is false), the description adds value beyond the annotations by detailing the non-idempotent behavior and the need for pre-resolving IDs, which is important for the agent to understand the side effects and prerequisites.

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 concise and well-structured. It starts with a clear one-line purpose, then groups related information: when to use, alternatives, behavioral warnings, and return value. Every sentence earns its place, and the use of bullet points for behavioral notes improves readability. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and usage, making it 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?

Given that there is an output schema and 9 parameters (1 required), the description provides essential context: the non-idempotent behavior, the need to resolve IDs beforehand, and the return value structure (confirmation, created ID, complete record, and that structuredContent.id is reusable for chaining). This covers the risk of duplicate creation and the dependency on external lookups, which are not evident from the schema alone. The description is complete for an agent to correctly invoke the tool without missing critical steps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning every parameter has a description in the schema. The tool description does not enumerate the parameters but mentions that relation IDs and state/type IDs need to be resolved beforehand, which adds context beyond the raw schema names (e.g., 'state' as an integer ID). However, most parameter descriptions in the schema are minimal (e.g., 'Ville', 'Email de la société'), and the description does not provide additional details like required format or examples. Since the schema already covers each parameter, the baseline is 3, and the description adds marginal value by highlighting the ID resolution requirement.

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 uses a specific verb (Crée) and resource (société dans BoondManager), and clearly states the purpose: adding a company that does not yet exist. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly naming `boond_companies_update` for modification and `boond_companies_search` for pre-checking existence, making it clear what this tool does and does not do.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('pour ajouter un(e) société inexistant(e)') and provides alternatives: it directs to use `boond_companies_update` for existing records and `boond_companies_search` first to verify non-existence. This is clear usage guidance with specific conditions and alternative tools, which is exactly what is needed.

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

Deploy Server