boondmanager-mcp-server

Créer un(e) bon de commande

boond_orders_create

Create a purchase order in BoondManager by specifying company, project, dates, and amounts. Use after searching to confirm it doesn't exist, since the API does not deduplicate.

Instructions

Crée un(e) bon de commande dans BoondManager.

Quand : pour ajouter un(e) bon de commande inexistant(e). Plutôt que : boond_orders_update pour modifier un enregistrement existant, et boond_orders_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 du bon de commande
`endDate`	No	Date de fin couverte (YYYY-MM-DD)
`companyId`	No	ID de la société
`orderDate`	No	Date du bon de commande (YYYY-MM-DD)
`projectId`	No	ID du projet associé
`reference`	No	Référence du bon de commande
`schedules`	No	Lignes/échéances de commande
`startDate`	No	Date de début couverte (YYYY-MM-DD)
`customerAgreement`	No	Accord client reçu
`amountExcludingTax`	No	Montant HT

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#"

Changed4 schema fields changedv2.8.0Jun 29, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / customerAgreement

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Accord client reçu",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / endDate

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Date de fin couverte (YYYY-MM-DD)",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / schedules

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Lignes/échéances de commande",
+  "items": {
+    "additionalProperties": {},
+    "propertyNames": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / startDate

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Date de début couverte (YYYY-MM-DD)",
+  "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

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as non-idempotent, but the description explicitly states in natural language that two identical calls create two records and the API does not deduplicate. It also notes that relation/state IDs must be resolved beforehand, which materially affects payload construction. This is a strong behavioral warning beyond what annotations convey.

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?

Justification goes here

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?

Justification goes here

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% for the 11 parameters)Skip loop? No, I need to produce just one JSON. Let me finalize with the values I decided: 5,5,5,4,5,5. Hmm any way to argue 5 for parameter semantics? The description adds a global note that all relation/state IDs must be numeric and pre-resolved, which applies across parameters. That's useful beyond schema. But schema covers individual params. I think 4 is fair (schema does heavy lifting; description adds cross-cutting guidance but no per-param additions). Good, 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 a specific verb+resource: 'Crée un(e) bon de commande dans BoondManager.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools, including boond_orders_update and boond_orders_search, by stating when it should be used — making the agent able to pick it correctly among a large sibling set.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('pour ajouter un bon de commande inexistant') and when not to (modification → update, verification first → search). This gives an agent direct selection criteria relative to its siblings.

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

Deploy Server