Skip to main content
Glama
fauguste

boondmanager-mcp-server

by fauguste
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Audit fraîcheur des CV / dossiers techniques

boond_workflow_cvs_a_mettre_a_jour
Read-onlyIdempotent

Generates a runbook of Boond API calls to identify resources with outdated, incomplete, or missing CVs, prioritizing those soon available. Includes exact filters for each step.

Instructions

Identifie les ressources dont le CV ou le dossier technique est obsolète, incomplet, ou manquant. Priorise celles bientôt sur le marché (en intercontrat ou disponibles à court terme).

Quand : pour dérouler ce scénario multi-étapes sans avoir à retrouver soi-même le bon enchaînement d'outils et les bons noms de filtres. Plutôt que : le prompt MCP cvs_a_mettre_a_jour si le client l'expose — contenu identique, sans consommer un appel d'outil. Cette variante existe pour les clients qui traitent mal prompts/get (claude.ai notamment).

  • N'appelle aucune API BoondManager et ne lit aucune donnée : la réponse est générée côté serveur MCP.

Returns : un runbook en texte — la liste ordonnée des appels Boond à effectuer, avec les filtres exacts. C'est ensuite au modèle de les exécuter ; rien n'est fait par cet appel.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
manager_idNoManager pour cibler son équipe. Accepte soit l'ID numérique, soit « Prénom Nom » (le serveur résoudra automatiquement via `boond_resources_search`). Si absent, scope = mon équipe via `perimeterDynamic: ['managers']`.
seuil_moisNoUn dossier technique non touché depuis plus de N mois est considéré obsolète (défaut: 12).

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. First observedv2.1.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses a key non-obvious trait: the tool calls no BoondManager API and reads no data, with the response generated server-side. It also states that nothing is executed by this call and the model must execute the returned runbook afterward. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context annotations alone do not provide.

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 well-structured and front-loaded, starting with the purpose, then usage conditions, then side effects and return value. Every sentence earns its place: the alternative-prompt note, the no-API clarification, and the runbook explanation are all necessary for correct use, with no filler.

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 runbook-generating workflow tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool returns, how the model should use the result, when to prefer the prompt alternative, and what side effects do not occur. Combined with the fully documented schema and safety annotations, nothing essential is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters, including the manager_id resolution behavior and the seuil_mois default of 12. The tool description does not add further parameter-level meaning, 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 states a specific outcome: auditing resources for obsolete, incomplete, or missing CVs/technical files and prioritizing those soon on the market. This clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling workflow tools. The later clarification that it returns a runbook rather than performing the audit itself is explicit and removes 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 when to use this tool: to run a multi-step scenario without manually finding the tool chain and filter names. The 'Plutôt que' section names the alternative prompt `cvs_a_mettre_a_jour`, states the content is identical, and explains that this tool variant exists for clients that handle prompts/get poorly. This is strong, actionable when/when-not guidance.

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