Skip to main content
Glama
fauguste

boondmanager-mcp-server

by fauguste
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Modifier un(e) produit

boond_products_update
Idempotent

Update an existing product by ID with partial field updates. Provide only the fields to change; array fields are replaced, not merged.

Instructions

Met à jour un(e) produit existant(e), identifié(e) par son ID.

Quand : pour modifier quelques champs d'un enregistrement déjà en base. Plutôt que : boond_products_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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesID du produit à modifier
nameNoNom du produit
noteNoDescription
stateNoÉtat
taxRateNoTaux de TVA (%)
referenceNoRéférence
unitPriceNoPrix unitaire HT

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoIdentifiant de l'entité créée/modifiée
typeNo

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 / $schema
      Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv2.7.0
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$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"
+}
  3. First observedv2.1.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior; the description adds valuable detail beyond that: partial update semantics and the explicit warning that array fields are replaced, not merged. It also states the return payload, with no contradiction against the annotations.

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-line action, short usage conditions, and two bullet-style behavior notes. Every sentence carries useful information, and key points are front-loaded.

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 7-parameter update tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers the essential operational context: when to use it, partial update behavior, array replacement caveat, and return shape. No critical gap remains for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so every parameter already has a description. The description adds a useful global note about partial writes, but it does not explain individual parameter meaning or format beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the action and resource: 'Met à jour un(e) produit existant(e), identifié(e) par son ID.' It distinguishes this tool from boond_products_create with an explicit 'Plutôt que' note, and the title reinforces the update semantics without ambiguity.

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' section explicitly says to use it for modifying a few fields of an existing record, and the 'Plutôt que' section directs the agent to boond_products_create when the record doesn't exist yet. This resolves the main create-vs-update decision clearly.

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