boondmanager-mcp-server

Créer un(e) contact

boond_contacts_create

Create a new contact in BoondManager. Use after searching to confirm the contact doesn't already exist to avoid duplicates.

Instructions

Crée un(e) contact dans BoondManager.

Quand : pour ajouter un(e) contact inexistant(e). Plutôt que : boond_contacts_update pour modifier un enregistrement existant, et boond_contacts_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
`note`	No	Notes
`title`	No	Titre / fonction
`email1`	No	Email principal
`phone1`	No	Téléphone
`country`	No	Pays
`lastName`	Yes	Nom de famille
`companyId`	No	ID de la société associée
`firstName`	Yes	Prénom du contact

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

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses that the operation is a real write and non-idempotent, which is crucial despite annotations indicating not read-only and not idempotent. It also warns about non-deduplication and the need to resolve IDs via dictionary lookups, adding significant behavioral context beyond annotations.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, then provides usage context naturally. Each sentence earns its place: the 'Quand' block, the 'Plutôt que' block, and behavioral notes. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

The description covers prerequisites (checking existence, resolving IDs), the non-idempotent nature, and explains the return value and how to use 'structuredContent.id' for chaining. Given the output schema exists, the return format is complete. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions in French, so the schema already provides semantic meaning. The description adds context about the 'companyId' and relationship IDs being BoondManager numeric IDs that need prior resolution, but doesn't re-explain individual parameters, which is acceptable given high coverage.

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 explicitly states 'Crée un(e) contact dans BoondManager' with a clear verb and resource. It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming 'boond_contacts_update' and 'boond_contacts_search' as alternatives, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 provides explicit 'Quand' with the condition 'pour ajouter un(e) contact inexistant(e)' and 'Plutôt que' naming alternatives, including a precondition to search first to avoid duplicates. This is a clear when/when-not guidance.

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

Deploy Server