boondmanager-mcp-server

Créer un(e) facture

boond_invoices_create

Create a new invoice record in BoondManager. Use search first to avoid duplicates, since repeated calls create multiple records.

Instructions

Crée un(e) facture dans BoondManager.

Quand : pour ajouter un(e) facture inexistant(e). Plutôt que : boond_invoices_update pour modifier un enregistrement existant, et boond_invoices_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
`note`	No	Notes / commentaires
`state`	No	État de la facture
`orderId`	No	ID du bon de commande associé
`taxRate`	No	Taux de TVA (%)
`reference`	No	Référence de la facture
`invoiceDate`	No	Date de facturation (YYYY-MM-DD)
`invoiceRecords`	No	Lignes de facture Boond
`invoicePayments`	No	Paiements client de la facture
`amountExcludingTax`	No	Montant HT
`expectedPaymentDate`	No	Date d'échéance/paiement attendu (YYYY-MM-DD)

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.

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#"

Changed7 schema fields changedv2.8.0Jun 29, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / companyId

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "ID de la société facturée",
-  "type": "string"
-}

removedInput schema / properties / dueDate

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Date d'échéance (YYYY-MM-DD)",
-  "type": "string"
-}

addedInput schema / properties / expectedPaymentDate

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Date d'échéance/paiement attendu (YYYY-MM-DD)",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / invoicePayments

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Paiements client de la facture",
+  "items": {
+    "additionalProperties": {},
+    "propertyNames": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / invoiceRecords

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Lignes de facture Boond",
+  "items": {
+    "additionalProperties": {},
+    "propertyNames": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / orderId

Added value: +{
+  "description": "ID du bon de commande associé",
+  "type": "string"
+}

removedInput schema / properties / projectId

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "ID du projet associé",
-  "type": "string"
-}

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

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only (readOnlyHint: false), non-idempotent (idempotentHint: false). The description adds value by explicitly stating the tool is 'Écriture réelle et non idempotente' with a concrete example of duplicate creation, and explains that relation IDs must be resolved beforehand. It also mentions the return format, providing 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise, with key information front-loaded: the purpose, usage conditions, and exclusions are in the first few lines. It uses bullet points for behaviors and clear structure, but includes a bit of redundancy (e.g., 'Returns' section) that could be tightened. Overall efficient and well-organized.

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 the tool has 10 parameters (all optional), no required fields, and an output schema present, the description covers essential context: when to use, what not to use, non-idempotence, ID resolution necessity, and return value details including the usable structuredContent.id. This is complete for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter, so the baseline is 3. However, the description adds critical guidance about parameters: it notes that relation IDs and state/type fields are numeric BoondManager IDs requiring prior resolution via searches or dictionary endpoints. This is valuable semantics that helps the agent understand how to populate fields like 'invoiceRecords' and 'state'.

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 the tool creates an invoice in BoondManager, with a specific verb 'Crée' and a specific resource 'facture'. It distinguishes from update and search tools by naming them, making its purpose unambiguous.

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' (when to use) for adding a non-existent invoice, and 'Plutôt que' (instead of) pointing to update and search, including instructions to search first to avoid duplicates. This gives clear guidance on when to use vs alternatives.

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

Deploy Server