Skip to main content
Glama
fauguste

boondmanager-mcp-server

by fauguste
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Rechercher des notifications

boond_notifications_search
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search BoondManager notifications by required category (activity, thread, or corporate), optional read state, and parent types. Retrieve matching notifications with pagination and field projection.

Instructions

Recherche des notifications dans BoondManager.

Plutôt que : boond_validations_search pour ce qui requiert réellement une action de validation — une notification n'est qu'un message.

⚠️ Le paramètre category est REQUIS par l'API (singulier, pas de tableau).

Args:

  • category (string, requis): 'activity' | 'thread' | 'corporate'

  • state (string, optional): 'new' | 'read'

  • parentType (string[], optional): types de modules parents (ex: 'contract', 'global')

Returns: Liste des notifications 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.

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

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoNuméro de page (max: 100)
stateNoFiltrer par état de lecture.
fieldsNoProjection : attributs à afficher par résultat (ex: ['title','updateDate']). Absent = résumé standard. Noms inconnus ignorés.
categoryYesCatégorie (requis): 'activity' (notifications d'activité), 'thread' (messages), 'corporate' (annonces).
pageSizeNoNombre de résultats par page (max: 500, défaut: 30)
parentTypeNoTypes de modules parents (ex: 'contract', 'global', 'project'...).

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotent, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds significant behavioral context: the fields parameter is a client-side projection not sent to the API, unknown names are ignored, and pagination limits are specified (pageSize 1-500, page default 30; page 1-100). It also notes that exceeding limits results in refusal, advising refinement of filters.

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: it opens with the purpose, immediately gives the distinction from boond_validations_search, warns about required category, lists Args concisely, then provides returns and behavioral notes. Every sentence is purposeful, and it is front-loaded with the most critical information. No redundant text.

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 complexity (6 parameters, one required, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: required category, optional filters, returns, the fields projection, and pagination limits. The annotations handle safety and idempotency, so the description completes the picture for an agent to use the tool correctly without additional lookup.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description. The description adds value by listing args with enums and examples, clarifying category is required (singular, not array), and explaining the behavior of fields and pagination parameters in detail. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions, so it earns a 4.

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 starts with 'Recherche des notifications dans BoondManager' which clearly states the tool searches for notifications. It explicitly differentiates from boond_validations_search by stating 'Plutôt que : `boond_validations_search` pour ce qui requiert réellement une action de validation — une notification n'est qu'un message.' This makes the purpose precise and distinguishes it from a closely related sibling.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit guidance on when not to use this tool (when validation action is needed) and names the alternative boond_validations_search. It also emphasizes that category is required. However, it does not cover all possible alternative tools or broader usage scenarios, but the exclusion is clear and sufficient for the primary decision.

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