Skip to main content
Glama
fauguste

boondmanager-mcp-server

by fauguste
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Rechercher des pôles

boond_poles_search
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search BoondManager poles by keywords to retrieve ID and label. Returns summary with total count, useful for identifying a pole from its name.

Instructions

Liste et recherche les pôles de BoondManager, par mots-clés et pagination.

Quand : pour retrouver l'ID d'un(e) pôle à partir de son nom, ou pour énumérer les pôles existant(e)s. Plutôt que : boond_poles_get si l'ID est déjà connu — la recherche ne renvoie qu'un résumé d'une ligne par pôle.

Returns : page de résumés (ID + libellé principal), plus structuredContent.total = nombre total côté BoondManager. 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 sans effet : cette route renvoie toujours la table complète, pageSize et page sont ignorés par l'API — inutile de paginer, tout est déjà là.

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)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countYesNombre d'éléments retournés sur cette page
itemsYes
totalNoNombre total de résultats côté BoondManager

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv2.12.2
    • removedInput schema / $schema
      Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
    • removedOutput schema / $schema
      Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv2.9.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / fields
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Projection : attributs à afficher par résultat (ex: ['title','updateDate']). Absent = résumé standard. Noms inconnus ignorés.",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
  3. Changed1 schema field changedv2.7.0
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$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"
+}
  4. First observedv2.1.0

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds important behavior beyond the annotations: pagination is ignored by the API, the route returns the whole table, fields is a projection applied MCP-side and never sent to the API, and unknown field names are ignored. It also explains the result shape and the total count. These are genuine, non-obvious behavioral details.

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 description is well structured and front-loaded with purpose, use cases, and return semantics. However, the first sentence mentions 'par mots-clés et pagination' and then the final bullet says pagination has no effect, a slight internal inconsistency. The 'Lecture seule' note also duplicates the annotations, but overall it still earns its place.

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?

For a no-required-param read-only search tool, the description covers when to use it, the sibling alternative, the summary return shape, the total value, and the surprising behavior of the pagination. There is no obvious missing information an agent would need to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Even though schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds critical meaning the schema cannot convey: page and pageSize are accepted but have no effect, and fields is only a local projection not transmitted to BoondManager. This directly prevents an agent from wasting effort paginating or misunderstanding fields.

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 a specific verb/resource pair: list and search poles in BoondManager by keywords. It also gives the concrete use case (find a pole ID by name, or enumerate existing poles) and differentiates itself from boond_poles_get by noting it returns only a one-line summary per pole. An agent can tell exactly what this tool is for.

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 an explicit 'Quand' section saying when to use it, and a 'Plutôt que' section pointing to boond_poles_get when the ID is already known. This is strong when/when-not guidance with a named sibling alternative.

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