Skip to main content
Glama
silamir

boondmanager-mcp-server

by silamir
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Rechercher des avantages

boond_advantages_search
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a resource's benefits (meal vouchers, insurance, perks) by resource ID, with optional type filtering and pagination.

Instructions

Liste les avantages (tickets restaurant, mutuelle, véhicule, primes...) d'une ressource.

Plutôt que : boond_resources_advantages quand on part d'une ressource précise.

resourceId est obligatoire : l'API n'a pas de recherche globale des avantages (GET /advantages n'existe pas), la liste est servie par GET /resources/{id}/avantages. advantageTypes restreint aux types <reference>_<agencyId>.

Returns: Liste des avantages de la ressource.

  • 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.
pageSizeNoNombre de résultats par page (max: 500, défaut: 30)
resourceIdYesID de la ressource dont on liste les avantages (route /resources/{id}/advantages)
advantageTypesNoTypes d'avantage à conserver, au format `<reference>_<agencyId>` (référence du type + ID d'agence, ex: '2_1').

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed7 schema fields changedv2.17.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / advantageTypes
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Types d'avantage à conserver, au format `<reference>_<agencyId>` (référence du type + ID d'agence, ex: '2_1').",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / keywords
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Mots-clés de recherche",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • changedInput schema / properties / page / description
      Previous value: -"Numéro de page (max: 100)"New value: +"Numéro de page (défaut: 1, max: 100)"
    • changedInput schema / properties / pageSize / description
      Previous value: -"Résultats par page"New value: +"Nombre de résultats par page (max: 500, défaut: 30)"
    • changedInput schema / properties / resourceId / description
      Previous value: -"Filtrer par ID ressource"New value: +"ID de la ressource dont on liste les avantages (route /resources/{id}/advantages)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / resourceId / pattern
      Added value: +"^\\d+$"
    • addedInput schema / required
      Added value: +[
+  "resourceId"
+]
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv2.12.2
    • removedInput schema / $schema
      Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
  3. 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"
+}
  4. First observedv2.1.0

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, the description reveals important runtime behavior: the underlying route is GET /resources/{id}/avantages, fields is a client-side projection never sent to the API, and page/pageSize beyond the limits are refused. No contradiction with 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 structured with a one-line purpose, an alternative-usage note, then compact bullets for fields and pagination. Every sentence carries distinct information and the most important constraint (resourceId required, no global endpoint) appears near the beginning.

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 filtered list tool with full parameter schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is complete: it covers the required parameter, the endpoint constraint, the type filter format, projection behavior, and pagination limits. The short 'Returns' line is sufficient given that no output schema exists but the result type is a list of the resource's advantages.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Although the schema already describes all parameters at 100% coverage, the description adds genuinely new semantics: the API route implied by resourceId, the <reference>_<agencyId> format for advantageTypes, the MCP-side behavior of fields, and precise pagination limits. This goes well beyond the baseline schema content.

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 opens with a specific action and object—'Liste les avantages ... d'une ressource'—and immediately names the closest sibling, boond_resources_advantages, with the condition under which this tool should be preferred. This makes the tool's purpose and its distinction from siblings explicit.

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 explicitly tells the agent to use this tool instead of boond_resources_advantages when starting from a specific resource, and states that resourceId is mandatory because no global GET /advantages endpoint exists. It also recommends using fields for large pages and documents pagination refusal behavior, giving concrete selection and invocation 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