Skip to main content
Glama
fauguste

boondmanager-mcp-server

Supprimer un(e) contact

boond_contacts_delete
Destructive

Permanently deletes a contact from BoondManager after verifying the ID. Use update to deactivate instead of destroy; this action is irreversible.

Instructions

Supprime définitivement un(e) contact de BoondManager.

Quand : uniquement sur demande explicite de l'utilisateur, et après avoir vérifié l'ID avec boond_contacts_get. Plutôt que : boond_contacts_update pour désactiver ou changer l'état d'un enregistrement sans le détruire — c'est presque toujours l'intention réelle.

  • ⚠️ Irréversible, sans corbeille côté API.

  • Si le client MCP annonce la capacité elicitation, une confirmation est demandée à l'utilisateur final et un refus annule l'appel (structuredContent.deleted: false + reason) ; sinon la suppression part directement.

Returns : { id, deleted, reason? } — vérifier deleted, qui vaut false en cas de refus utilisateur.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesIdentifiant unique de l'entité BoondManager (numérique)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
reasonNoPrésent quand la suppression n'a pas eu lieu (ex: refus utilisateur)
deletedYes

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 / $schema
      Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
  2. Changed4 schema fields changedv2.7.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / id / description
      Previous value: -"Identifiant unique de l'entité BoondManager"New value: +"Identifiant unique de l'entité BoondManager (numérique)"
    • removedInput schema / properties / id / minLength
      Removed value: -1
    • addedInput schema / properties / id / pattern
      Added value: +"^\\d+$"
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
      +  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
      +  "additionalProperties": false,
      +  "properties": {
      +    "deleted": {
      +      "type": "boolean"
      +    },
      +    "id": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "reason": {
      +      "description": "Présent quand la suppression n'a pas eu lieu (ex: refus utilisateur)",
      +      "type": "string"
      +    }
      +  },
      +  "required": [
      +    "id",
      +    "deleted"
      +  ],
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
  3. First observedv2.1.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation, the description discloses irreversibility with no API-side trash, the conditional elicitation-required confirmation flow, refusal behavior returning deleted:false with a reason, and instruction to check the returned deleted field. This goes well beyond the 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 overview is front-loaded with the purpose, then organized into clear labeled sections and a bulleted warning. Each sentence and section carries necessary information (safety condition, alternative, irreversibility, elicitation flow, return value), with no wordy 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?

For a one-parameter destructive delete, the description covers the permanent effect, the safety prerequisite, the alternative tool, confirmation/refusal behavior, and the return contract. An agent has all the context needed to invoke it correctly and safely.

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 already fully documents the single id parameter with type, pattern, and description (100% coverage). The description adds only a workflow warning to verify the ID via boond_contacts_get, which is useful but not genuinely new parameter semantics.

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 states a specific verb, resource, and effect: 'Supprime définitivement un(e) contact de BoondManager.' It conveys permanent deletion and is clearly distinguished from sibling alternatives, especially boond_contacts_update.

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 contains explicit 'Quand' and 'Plutôt que' sections. It instructs the agent to use this tool only on explicit user request and after verifying the ID with boond_contacts_get, and directs non-destructive situations to boond_contacts_update instead.

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