Skip to main content
Glama
fauguste

boondmanager-mcp-server

by fauguste
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Créer un achat/sous-traitance

boond_purchases_create

Create a supplier purchase or subcontracting line to commit a project expense, representing the financial engagement before the supplier invoice.

Instructions

Crée un achat ou une ligne de sous-traitance.

Quand : pour engager une dépense fournisseur, généralement rattachée à un projet. Plutôt que : boond_provider_invoices_create pour la facture reçue du fournisseur — l'achat est l'engagement, la facture fournisseur en est le règlement attendu.

  • Écriture non idempotente.

  • Les ID de société, contact et projet sont des ID numériques BoondManager, à résoudre au préalable via les recherches correspondantes.

Returns : confirmation et fiche de l'achat créé.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteNoNotes / commentaires
stateNoÉtat de l'achat
titleNoTitre de l'achat/sous-traitance
endDateNoDate de fin (YYYY-MM-DD)
companyIdNoID de la société fournisseur
contactIdNoID du contact fournisseur
projectIdNoID du projet associé
startDateNoDate de début (YYYY-MM-DD)

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. Changed2 schema fields changedv2.8.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / contactId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "ID du contact fournisseur",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / title
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Titre de l'achat/sous-traitance",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. First observedv2.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate non-idempotent and not read-only, so the description's mention of 'Écriture non idempotente' adds value beyond annotations by clarifying write behavior. It also discloses a critical prerequisite: that company, contact, and project IDs must be resolved beforehand via searches. However, it doesn't detail the full response structure beyond 'confirmation et fiche' — but that is acceptable given no output schema exists. Could mention potential errors or side effects, but the disclosed constraints are valuable.

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 concise, structured with clear sections for when to use, alternative tool, and behavioral notes. It front-loads the core action and usage context in the first line, then adds important clarification. The bullet point about ID resolution is succinct. Not overly long, but could be slightly tighter by removing the 'Returns' line if it's redundant with output schema — but since no output schema exists, it's justified.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, creation action) and that no output schema exists, the description covers the essential context: when to use, alternative, ID resolution prerequisite, and return value existence. It doesn't describe what the 'fiche' contains or how to interpret the response, but given the schema fully documents each parameter, this is adequate. The only minor gap is whether all 8 parameters are required despite 'required' being 0; the description could clarify which are essential for a valid creation, but the tool seems flexible.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context that IDs are numeric BoondManager IDs and need resolution, which supplements the schema, but it doesn't add meaning for each parameter beyond what the schema already states (e.g., state is 'État de l'achat', but no explanation of possible values). It does not over-credit, but the prerequisite note enhances the meaning of companyId, contactId, and projectId.

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 ('Crée un achat ou une ligne de sous-traitance') and the resource (achat/sous-traitance), which matches the tool name and distinguishes it from related creation tools like provider invoices and orders. It specifies the business purpose (engager une dépense fournisseur) and differentiates from siblings by mentioning the alternative tool for invoices.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use context ('pour engager une dépense fournisseur') and explicitly names the alternative tool (`boond_provider_invoices_create`) with the condition for choosing it (invoice versus purchase commitment). This clearly routes the agent away from confusion with sibling creation tools.

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