Skip to main content
Glama
fauguste

boondmanager-mcp-server

by fauguste
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Rechercher des livraisons / CRA

boond_deliveries_search
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search deliveries (activity reports) in BoondManager by project, company, and period to find billable mission lines.

Instructions

Recherche des livraisons (comptes rendus d'activite) dans BoondManager avec filtres par projet, societe et periode.

Quand : pour retrouver des prestations (lignes de mission facturables) sur un périmètre. Plutôt que : boond_projects_deliveries_groupments quand on part d'un projet connu — plus direct.

Args:

  • keywords (string, optional): Termes de recherche

  • projectId, companyId (string, optional): Filtrer par entite liee

  • startDate, endDate (string, optional): Periode (YYYY-MM-DD)

  • page, pageSize: Pagination

Returns: Liste des livraisons correspondantes.

  • 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.
endDateNoDate de fin (YYYY-MM-DD)
keywordsNoMots-clés de recherche
pageSizeNoRésultats par page
companyIdNoFiltrer par ID société
projectIdNoFiltrer par ID projet
startDateNoDate de début (YYYY-MM-DD)

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about the 'fields' parameter being a MCP-side projection never sent to the API and that unknown names are ignored, which clarifies behavior beyond the schema. No contradiction with 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 well-structured: purpose, usage guidance, argument list, return type, and a note about fields. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and avoids redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a search tool with 8 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers filters, pagination, the fields projection, and usage guidance. It could mention default ordering or result format, but given the schema and annotations, it is reasonably complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a little extra context (e.g., fields is MCP-side, never transmitted) but mostly restates the schema. It does not significantly deepen parameter understanding beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states it searches deliveries (activity reports) with filters by project, company, and period, and distinguishes itself from the sibling boond_projects_deliveries_groupments by explaining the direct route from a known project. This gives a specific verb, resource, and differentiation.

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 states when to use this tool ('pour retrouver des prestations sur un périmètre') and when not to, naming the alternative boond_projects_deliveries_groupments when starting from a known project. This is clear, actionable guidance.

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