boondmanager-mcp-server

Modifier un(e) bon de commande

boond_orders_update

Idempotent

Update an existing purchase order by ID, modifying only specified fields while leaving others unchanged. Array fields are replaced, not merged.

Instructions

Met à jour un(e) bon de commande existant(e), identifié(e) par son ID.

Quand : pour modifier quelques champs d'un enregistrement déjà en base. Plutôt que : boond_orders_create si l'enregistrement n'existe pas encore.

Mise à jour partielle : seuls les champs fournis sont écrits, les autres sont laissés en place.
Attention aux champs de type tableau, qui sont remplacés et non fusionnés.

Returns : confirmation et fiche mise à jour.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	ID du bon de commande à modifier
`note`	No	Notes
`state`	No	État
`endDate`	No	Date de fin couverte (YYYY-MM-DD)
`orderDate`	No	Date (YYYY-MM-DD)
`reference`	No	Référence
`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?

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description discloses partial-update semantics: 'seuls les champs fournis sont écrits, les autres sont laissés en place' and specifically warns that array fields are replaced, not merged: 'Attention aux champs de type tableau, qui sont **remplacés** et non fusionnés.' This is genuinely additional behavioral context an agent needs.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a short 'when/rather-than' pair, two bulleted behavioral caveats, and a one-line return note. Every sentence carries unique information with zero redundancy.

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 tool has 10 parameters and an output schema; the description covers the essential usage context (partial updates, array replacement), identifies the correct alternative, and states the return value. There is no missing guidance for an agent to correctly issue partial updates on this resource.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic meaning for how parameters are applied: only the provided fields are written, and arrays are replaced wholesale. This goes beyond the schema's plain labels, though it doesn't elaborate each individual field's semantic beyond what schemas already 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Met à jour un(e) bon de commande existant(e), identifié(e) par son ID.' It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling create tool by stating 'Plutôt que : `boond_orders_create` si l'enregistrement n'existe pas encore.' No ambiguity remains.

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 'Quand' clause defines the precise use case (modifying a few fields of an existing record), and the 'Plutôt que' line names the exactly alternative behavior with the sibling tool. This dual guidance leaves no doubt about when to invoke it.

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

Deploy Server