boondmanager-mcp-server

Supprimer une note de frais

boond_expenses_delete

Destructive

Permanently delete an expense report from BoondManager by its ID. Use only after verifying the ID and confirming the user's explicit request, as this action is irreversible.

Instructions

Supprime définitivement un(e) note de frais de BoondManager.

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

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Identifiant unique de l'entité BoondManager (numérique)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`reason`	No	Présent quand la suppression n'a pas eu lieu (ex: refus utilisateur)
`deleted`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv2.12.2Aug 14, 2026

removedInput schema / $schema

Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"

removedOutput schema / $schema

Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"

Changed4 schema fields changedv2.7.0Jun 19, 2026

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"
+}

First observedv2.1.0May 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses that deletion is irreversible with no trash bin on the API side. It also explains the confirmation behavior depending on the MCP elicitation capability and the structured refusal result, which is valuable operational context the annotation cannot convey.

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 a clear opening, a Quand/Plutôt que comparison, and bullet points for supplemental guidance. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose—when to use, alternatives, rights checks, irreversibility, confirmation behavior, and return value—so no element is wasted.

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 operation with one parameter, an output schema, and strong annotations, this description covers all relevant decisions: when to invoke, what to check first, which sibling to prefer, irreversibility, user-confirmation behavior, and how to interpret the returned deleted flag. 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 description coverage is 100%, so the single id parameter is already documented in the input schema. The description adds the practical suggestion to verify the ID via boond_expenses_get, but does not add new semantic meaning about the parameter itself; the schema carries the burden.

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 and resource: it permanently deletes an expense report from BoondManager. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from boond_expenses_update, which deactivates or changes state rather than destroys the record, so an agent can tell them apart.

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_expenses_get. It also names the preferred alternative, boond_expenses_update, and explains that deactivating/changing state is almost always the real intent, making the routing decision unambiguous.

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

Deploy Server