Skip to main content
Glama
fauguste

boondmanager-mcp-server

by fauguste
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Rechercher le planning des absences

boond_planning_absences_search
Read-onlyIdempotent

Find who is absent over a period using the absence planning calendar. Filter by keywords and paginate through results to get a global view of planned absences.

Instructions

Recherche le planning des absences dans BoondManager (vue globale des absences prévues).

Quand : pour savoir qui est absent sur une période — une vue calendaire, pas un suivi de demandes. Plutôt que : boond_absences_search pour les demandes elles-mêmes (motif, état de validation, demandeur), que cette vue ne détaille pas.

Returns: Planning des absences.

  • 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 (défaut: 1, max: 100)
fieldsNoProjection : attributs à afficher par résultat (ex: ['title','updateDate']). Absent = résumé standard. Noms inconnus ignorés.
keywordsNoMots-clés de recherche (nom, email, compétences...)
pageSizeNoNombre de résultats par page (max: 500, défaut: 30)

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 establish a safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile. The description adds useful beyond-annotation behavior: the fields projection is applied MCP-side and never sent to the API, unknown names are ignored, and out-of-range pagination is refused rather than accepted.

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 purpose and usage conditions are front-loaded in tight French sentences with bullet-form param notes. The only minor waste is the 'Returns: Planning des absences' line, which largely repeats the first sentence; otherwise the content is lean and well organized.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a search-style tool with no required parameters, annotations carrying safety, and full schema coverage, the description supplies usage context, an alternative, pagination limits, and special behavior of fields. The lack of an output schema makes the 'Planning des absences' return note thinner than ideal, but it is sufficient for selecting and calling this tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds semantic value by explaining fields is a client-side projection that replaces the default summary and is useful on large pages, and that page/pageSize beyond maximum lead to refusal. This clarifies behavior not obvious from the schema alone.

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 the verb 'Recherche' on a specific resource ('le planning des absences dans BoondManager') and immediately characterizes it as a calendar/global view of planned absences, not a request tracker. It also names the sibling boond_absences_search as covering a different object, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

'Quand' explicitly states the use case: knowing who is absent over a period. 'Plutôt que' explicitly routes to boond_absences_search when request-level detail (motif, état de validation, demandeur) is needed, and notes this view does not detail those fields.

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