boondmanager-mcp-server

Supprimer une facture

boond_invoices_delete

Destructive

Permanently delete an invoice from BoondManager after verifying its ID. Irreversible action; use update to deactivate instead unless deletion is explicitly required.

Instructions

Supprime définitivement un(e) facture de BoondManager.

Quand : uniquement sur demande explicite de l'utilisateur, et après avoir vérifié l'ID avec boond_invoices_get. Plutôt que : boond_invoices_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

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Identifiant unique de l'entité BoondManager (numérique)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`reason`	No	Présent quand la suppression n'a pas eu lieu (ex: refus utilisateur)
`deleted`	Yes

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#"

Changed4 schema fields changedv2.7.0Jun 19, 2026

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"
+}

First observedv2.1.0May 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description adds critical context: irreversibility with no trash, and the elicitation capability behavior (confirmation request and refusal handling). It also explains the return structure in case of refusal. This exceeds what annotations provide, earning a top score.

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 well-structured with clear sections (when, rather than, warnings, returns) and uses bullet points for scanning. It is slightly long but every sentence earns its place, covering essential usage and behavior. No fluff, but the multiple sections could be tightened; still very good.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering destructive intent, the description fills all necessary gaps: when to use, what to verify, how to handle refusal, and the return contract. It is complete for a delegation-focused tool with a single parameter, leaving nothing critical unexplained.

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%, with the 'id' parameter well-documented as a numeric string. The description doesn't add detail about the parameter beyond the schema, which is fine since the schema is complete. The reference to verifying with boond_invoices_get implies how to obtain the id, slightly adding value, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 permanently deletes an invoice from BoondManager, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like boond_invoices_update by explicitly saying it is for deletion, not deactivation or state changes. The title and name align, and the description goes beyond the name to specify the irreversible nature.

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 gives explicit guidance: use only on explicit user request, verify the ID with boond_invoices_get first, and prefer boond_invoices_update for non-destructive changes. This directly addresses when to use this tool and when not to, referencing the alternative sibling, which is exactly what the dimension asks for.

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

Deploy Server