Skip to main content
Glama
fauguste

boondmanager-mcp-server

by fauguste
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Rechercher des fils de discussion

boond_threads_search
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search and list BoondManager discussion threads by keywords with pagination. Retrieve thread IDs and one-line summaries to locate conversations by name.

Instructions

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

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

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 : 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)

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 annotations already provide readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive signals, and the description reinforces and expands them. It reveals that the tool returns a one-line summary with ID and label, supplies structuredContent.total from BoondManager, and explains that fields is a MCP-side projection never sent to the API, with unknown names ignored. It also discloses that pagination outside the supported ranges is rejected.

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 structured with short sections: purpose, when to use, alternative, return behavior, and parameter clarifications. Every sentence is load-bearing; there is no filler while the text remains compact and easy to scan.

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-parameter search tool with an output schema and readOnly annotations, this description covers the needed context: purpose, alternatives, return output, pagination, projection behavior, and safety. An agent has enough information to use the tool correctly without needing to open the schema.

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 schema already documents parameters correctly. The description adds non-obvious semantic value for `fields`: it is not transmitted to the API, replaces the standard summary, and is recommended for large pages. It also spells out pagination refusal beyond limits, which goes beyond the schema's min/max constraints.

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 states a specific action and resource: listing and searching BoondManager discussion threads, by keywords and pagination. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from boond_threads_get, saying the search is for finding an ID or enumerating threads, not for fetching one already known.

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?

It has an explicit 'Quand' section giving clear conditions for use, and a 'Plutot que' section naming the alternative boond_threads_get and explaining why it should be used when the ID is already known. It also gives guidance on when to use the fields parameter, i.e. for large pages.

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