Skip to main content
Glama
silamir

boondmanager-mcp-server

by silamir
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Supprimer un(e) candidat

boond_candidates_delete
Destructive

Permanently delete a candidate record from BoondManager after ID verification, with user confirmation and rights check to avoid irreversible loss.

Instructions

Supprime définitivement un(e) candidat de BoondManager.

Quand : uniquement sur demande explicite de l'utilisateur, et après avoir vérifié l'ID avec boond_candidates_get. Plutôt que : boond_candidates_update pour désactiver ou changer l'état d'un enregistrement sans le détruire — c'est presque toujours l'intention réelle.

  • boond_rights_get dit si l'utilisateur a ce droit sur l'enregistrement avant d'essayer (un 403 évité).

  • ⚠️ Irréversible, sans corbeille côté API.

  • Si le client MCP annonce la capacité elicitation, une confirmation est demandée à l'utilisateur final et un refus annule l'appel (structuredContent.deleted: false + reason) ; sinon la suppression part directement.

Returns : { id, deleted, reason? } — vérifier deleted, qui vaut false en cas de refus utilisateur.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesIdentifiant unique de l'entité BoondManager (numérique)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
reasonNoPrésent quand la suppression n'a pas eu lieu (ex: refus utilisateur)
deletedYes

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 / $schema
      Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
  2. Changed4 schema fields changedv2.7.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / id / description
      Previous value: -"Identifiant unique de l'entité BoondManager"New value: +"Identifiant unique de l'entité BoondManager (numérique)"
    • removedInput schema / properties / id / minLength
      Removed value: -1
    • addedInput schema / properties / id / pattern
      Added value: +"^\\d+$"
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "deleted": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "id": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "reason": {
+      "description": "Présent quand la suppression n'a pas eu lieu (ex: refus utilisateur)",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "id",
+    "deleted"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. First observedv2.1.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already include destructiveHint=true, but the description adds crucial context: irreversibility, absence of trash, confirmation flow contingent on elicitation capability, and the returned deleted flag semantics. It also explains how a refusal cancels the call. No contradiction with annotations; it enriches them.

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 with clear sections (Quand, Plutôt que, bullets, Returns). It packs essential information without redundancy. Each sentence adds value, and the most critical facts (permanent delete, alternatives) are front-loaded.

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 the single parameter, existing output schema, and annotations covering destructive behavior, the description goes beyond the minimum. It covers usage conditions, alternatives, rights check, irreversibility, confirmation behavior, and return format. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the id parameter is already documented. The description does not add additional meaning about the parameter beyond the schema, but it does emphasize verifying the ID via another tool, which is more of a usage guideline than parameter semantics. Baseline 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 verb+resource ('Supprime définitivement un(e) candidat') and clearly distinguishes from the sibling update tool by explaining when to use delete vs update. It also notes the permanence and lack of trash, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (on explicit user request after verifying ID with boond_candidates_get) and when not to (prefer update for deactivation). Names the alternative tool and the rights-check tool (boond_rights_get), providing clear routing 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