Skip to main content
Glama
fauguste

boondmanager-mcp-server

by fauguste
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Synthèse d'une équipe

boond_workflow_synthese_equipe
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get a step-by-step runbook for a team status overview: who’s working on what, who’s absent, and who’s available. Specify a manager or period, and receive ordered Boond API calls with exact filters to execute.

Instructions

Produit un état d'équipe : qui est sur quoi, qui est absent, qui est disponible. Si manager_id est omis, utilise l'utilisateur courant comme manager.

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 synthese_equipe 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
periodeNoPériode d'analyse libre (ex: 'cette semaine', 'avril 2026'). Défaut: mois en cours.
manager_idNoManager ciblé. Accepte soit l'ID numérique, soit « Prénom Nom » (le serveur résoudra automatiquement via `boond_resources_search`). Si absent, l'outil `boond_application_current_user` est appelé pour le récupérer.

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations, the description explicitly states it calls no BoondManager API, reads no data, is generated server-side, and performs no actions itself; it also clarifies the model must execute the returned runbook. This is exactly the kind of side-effect disclosure that annotations alone do not convey.

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 organized with Quand/Plutôt que/Returns sections and a front-loaded core sentence. It earns its length, though the no-API/no-read point is stated twice ('N'appelle aucune API...' and 'rien n'est fait par cet appel'), so a sentence could be trimmed.

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?

Given two optional params, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete: it explains the scenario, the alternative prompt, the exact return artifact, and the execution responsibility. An agent has enough to decide and call 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?

The input schema already documents both parameters at 100% coverage, including the default month for periode and manager_id's ID/name resolution and current-user fallback. The description adds only a paraphrase of the manager_id fallback, so it does not materially increase parameter understanding.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a concrete deliverable ('un état d'équipe : qui est sur quoi, qui est absent, qui est disponible') and clarifies that it returns a runbook, which is more specific than the title. It stops short of fully distinguishing this workflow from sibling workflow tools like boond_workflow_staffing_disponible, even though the 'Quand' section hints at the unique scenario.

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, explaining to use it for this multi-step scenario to avoid reconstructing tool chains and filter names, and a 'Plutôt que' section naming the prompt MCP alternative and when to prefer it (clients that mishandle prompts/get). This is clear when/when-not/alternative 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