boondmanager-mcp-server

Rechercher des notes de frais

boond_expenses_search

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search expense reports in BoondManager by resource, project, or period to prevent duplicate submissions before creating new entries.

Instructions

Recherche des notes de frais dans BoondManager avec filtres par ressource, projet et période.

Quand : avant toute création : l'API ne déduplique pas, deux notes de frais peuvent coexister sur le même couple (ressource, mois). Plutôt que : boond_expenses_get pour le détail des lignes d'une note de frais identifiée.

Args:

keywords (string, optional): Termes de recherche
resourceId, projectId (string, optional): Filtrer par entité liée
startDate, endDate (string, optional): Période (YYYY-MM-DD)
page, pageSize: Pagination

Returns: Liste des notes de frais 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

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No	Numéro de page (max: 100)
`fields`	No	Projection : attributs à afficher par résultat (ex: ['title','updateDate']). Absent = résumé standard. Noms inconnus ignorés.
`endDate`	No	Date de fin (YYYY-MM-DD)
`keywords`	No	Mots-clés de recherche
`pageSize`	No	Résultats par page
`projectId`	No	Filtrer par ID projet
`startDate`	No	Date de début (YYYY-MM-DD)
`resourceId`	No	Filtrer par ID ressource

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`count`	Yes	Nombre d'éléments retournés sur cette page
`items`	Yes
`total`	No	Nombre total de résultats côté BoondManager

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

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 changedv2.9.0Aug 3, 2026

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"
+}

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": {
+    "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"
+}

First observedv2.1.0May 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true-library. The description adds valuable behavioral detail about the deduplication behavior (or lack thereof), which is a nuanced API trait not inferable from annotations. It also explains the `fields` parameter as a client-side projection with behavior for unknown names, which is beyond schema description. This enriches behavioral understanding significantly.

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 with a concise overview, a 'Quand' section, a 'Plutôt que' section, a parameter list, and returns. It front-loads the critical warning about deduplication, and every sentence serves a purpose. The `fields` explanation is the only extra detail and earns its place.

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 fully covers the tool's complexity: 8 parameters, the key behavioral warning about deduplication, and the alternative routing. Since an output schema exists (though not shown in detail), the description doesn't need to enumerate return formats. For a search tool that's essentially a read operation with filters, nothing critical is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by grouping parameters (keywords, resourceId/projectId, startDate/endDate) with purpose, and crucially explains the `fields` parameter's client-side behavior and unknown-name handling, which is not in the schema. This elevates it above baseline.

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 ('Recherche'), a clear resource ('notes de frais'), and the key filters (ressource, projet, période). It clearly distinguishes itself from boond_expenses_get by noting the latter is for line details of an identified expense note. This sufficiently differentiates it from siblings in the same domain.

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 'Quand : avant toute création' and warns about the API's lack of deduplication, which is critical context for when to use this tool. It also names the alternative 'boond_expenses_get' and provides the condition for choosing it, giving clear when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance.

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

Deploy Server