Skip to main content
Glama
silamir

boondmanager-mcp-server

by silamir

Supprimer un(e) contact

boond_contacts_delete
Destructive

Permanently delete a contact from BoondManager by ID. Verify the ID first with the get tool, as this action is irreversible and bypasses the update flow.

Instructions

Supprime définitivement un(e) contact de BoondManager.

Quand : uniquement sur demande explicite de l'utilisateur, et après avoir vérifié l'ID avec boond_contacts_get. Plutôt que : boond_contacts_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?

The description adds significant behavior beyond the destructiveHint annotation: irreversibility with no API-side trash, the elicitation confirmation flow, the structured refusal result, and the suggestion to pre-check rights to avoid a 403. These are precisely the operational details an agent needs before calling.

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 clear labeled sections ('Quand', 'Plutôt que', bullets) and every sentence carries operational value. The irreversibility and confirmation behavior are front-loaded, making the critical risks visible before any other detail.

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 destructive single-parameter tool, the description covers all relevant context: prerequisites, alternatives, irreversibility, rights checking, confirmation behavior, and return-value semantics. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether and how to call this tool 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 coverage is 100% and the single id parameter is fully described in the schema as the unique numeric BoondManager entity identifier. The description adds the practical guidance to verify the ID with boond_contacts_get first, but does not need to restate schema-level details.

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 verb and resource: 'Supprime définitivement un(e) contact de BoondManager', making the destructive scope unambiguous. It also clearly distinguishes itself from the non-destructive alternative boond_contacts_update.

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 description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: only on explicit user request and after verifying the ID with boond_contacts_get. It explicitly names boond_contacts_update as the preferred alternative for deactivating without destroying, and recommends checking rights with boond_rights_get first.

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