boondmanager-mcp-server

Rechercher des factures

boond_invoices_search

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search customer invoices by company, project, status, or date range to monitor outstanding amounts, late payments, and expected receipts.

Instructions

Liste et recherche les factures client, par société, projet, état ou période.

Quand : pour suivre la facturation client (encours, retards, règlements attendus). Plutôt que : boond_provider_invoices_search pour les factures d'achat — celui-ci ne couvre que le sens vente, et les deux ne partagent pas d'endpoint.

Returns : page de résumés (référence, date, montants HT/TTC, état). Lecture seule.

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.
Pagination : pageSize 1–500 (défaut 30), page 1–100 — au-delà : refus, affiner les filtres.

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.
`period`	No	Type de période (created, updated, expectedPayment, performedPayment, period)
`endDate`	No	Date de fin de période (YYYY-MM-DD)
`keywords`	No	Mots-clés de recherche (référence, société...)
`pageSize`	No	Résultats par page
`companyId`	No	Filtrer par ID société
`projectId`	No	Filtrer par ID projet
`startDate`	No	Date de début de période (YYYY-MM-DD)

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

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, already indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by stating behavior: it returns a page of summaries (reference, date, amounts HT/TTC, status), and it explicitly says the `fields` parameter is a client-side projection never sent to the API, and that unknown field names are ignored. It also notes the `fields` parameter replaces the summary with only listed attributes on large pages. This goes beyond annotations but does not fully describe edge cases like pagination behavior beyond limits, though it does mention limits. Given the annotations' coverage, a 4 is appropriate as it adds meaningful context.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose; the second gives usage context; the third is a short 'Returns' line; then bullets for each parameter-specific note. Every sentence earns its place, no fluff, and the most important information (purpose and differentiation) appears in the first two sentences.

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 is complete for a filter/list tool with an output schema availableable, which already specifies return structure. It covers filters, pagination limits, the `fields` projection behavior, and the differentiation from the sibling. It does not need to detail return values because the output schema existscompile. No missing information that an agent needs to call it correctly is apparent.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 9 parameters. The description adds some value: it clarifies the `fields` parameter is a client-side projection but does not add syntax details beyond what schema provides (e.g., allowable values for `period` are not listed in description either). The description does not explain the relationship between parameters (e.g., startDate/endDate are needed with period), but the schema descriptions already cover basic meaning. Since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds minimal extra semantics, a baseline of 3 is correct.

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's purpose: 'Liste et recherche les factures client' (list and search customer invoices), specifying filter dimensions (company, project, status, or period). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool `boond_provider_invoices_search` for purchase invoices, noting a difference in direction and endpoint. This is more than sufficient for an agent to distinguish it from other search tools in the large sibling list.

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 provides explicit usage context: for tracking customer billing (outstanding, overdue, expected payments), and explicitly contrasts with `boond_provider_invoices_search` for purchase invoices, clarifying that the two do not share an endpoint. This direct exclusion and alternative guidance are exactly what an agent needs to choose the correct tool.

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

Deploy Server