boondmanager-mcp-server

Créer un contrat

boond_contracts_create

Create a new work contract (hiring, amendment, renewal) for a resource. Specify start/end dates, contract type ID, and notes to register it.

Instructions

Crée un contrat de travail rattaché à une ressource.

Quand : pour enregistrer un nouveau contrat (embauche, avenant, renouvellement). Plutôt que : boond_resources_contracts d'abord, pour vérifier qu'un contrat couvrant la même période n'existe pas déjà.

Écriture non idempotente : deux appels identiques créent deux contrats.
typeOf est un ID entier de boond://dictionary/typeOf/contracts, pas un libellé.

Returns : confirmation et fiche du contrat créé, avec son ID dans structuredContent.id.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No	Notes / commentaires (`informationComments`)
`typeOf`	No	Type de contrat : ID entier du dictionnaire `setting.typeOf.contract` (CDI, CDD, freelance…), via `boond_application_dictionary`
`endDate`	No	Date de fin (YYYY-MM-DD)
`startDate`	No	Date de début (YYYY-MM-DD)
`resourceId`	No	ID de la ressource associée

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No	Identifiant de l'entité créée/modifiée
`type`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed7 schema fields changedv2.17.0Sep 26, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / note / description

Previous value: -"Notes / commentaires"New value: +"Notes / commentaires (`informationComments`)"

addedInput schema / properties / resourceId / pattern
```
Added value: +"^\\d+$"
```

changedInput schema / properties / typeOf / description

Previous value: -"Type de contrat (CDI, CDD, freelance...)"New value: +"Type de contrat : ID entier du dictionnaire `setting.typeOf.contract` (CDI, CDD, freelance…), via `boond_application_dictionary`"

addedInput schema / properties / typeOf / maximum
```
Added value: +9007199254740991
```
addedInput schema / properties / typeOf / minimum
```
Added value: +-9007199254740991
```

changedInput schema / properties / typeOf / type

Previous value: -"string"New value: +"integer"

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "id": {
+      "description": "Identifiant de l'entité créée/modifiée",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "type": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedv2.12.2Aug 14, 2026
- removedInput schema / $schema
```
Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
```
First observedv2.1.0May 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=false, but the description makes the consequence concrete: two identical calls create two contracts. It also states the return shape (confirmation and created contract with ID at structuredContent.id), which is useful beyond structured annotations. 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?

Every part of the description earns its place: objective, when, alternative, non-idempotence, typeOf caveat, and return location. It is scannable with labels and bullets, and the core purpose is 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?

For a five-parameter create tool, the description covers the trigger, a duplicate-prevention precondition, non-idempotent behavior, the trickiest parameter (typeOf), and the ID location in the response. With an output schema also present, 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema carries most parameter meaning. The description reinforces the typeOf detail by giving the dictionary URI and emphasizing it is an ID, not a label, but this largely restates what the schema already says ('ID entier du dictionnaire'). Therefore it stays at the baseline of 3.

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 opening sentence states a concrete verb and object ('Crée un contrat de travail rattaché à une ressource'), so an agent knows exactly what is created and that the contract is tied to a resource. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools such as boond_contracts_search, boond_contracts_get, and boond_contracts_update, and the description explicitly distances it from boond_resources_contracts.

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' clause lists concrete cases (embauche, avenant, renouvellement) and the 'Plutôt que' clause names an alternative tool and the condition to check first (no contract covering the same period). This gives an agent explicit decision guidance rather than leaving usage to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server