boondmanager-mcp-server

Créer un(e) facture

boond_invoices_create

Create a new invoice in BoondManager to add a missing billing record. First search for existing invoices to avoid duplicates, then create the invoice with its details.

Instructions

Crée un(e) facture dans BoondManager.

Quand : pour ajouter un(e) facture inexistant(e). Plutôt que : boond_invoices_update pour modifier un enregistrement existant, et boond_invoices_search d'abord pour vérifier qu'il n'existe pas déjà.

Écriture réelle et non idempotente : deux appels identiques créent deux enregistrements (l'API ne déduplique pas).
Les ID de relations et les états/types sont des ID numériques BoondManager, à résoudre au préalable (recherches d'entités, boond://dictionary/*).

Returns : confirmation, ID créé, et la fiche complète. structuredContent.id est réutilisable directement pour chaîner un appel.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No	Notes / commentaires
`state`	No	État de la facture : ID de `boond://dictionary/states/invoices` (ex: 0 = Création, 1 = Transmis au client)
`orderId`	No	ID du bon de commande associé
`taxRate`	No	Taux de TVA (%)
`reference`	No	Référence de la facture
`invoiceDate`	No	Date de facturation (YYYY-MM-DD)
`invoiceRecords`	No	Lignes de facture Boond
`invoicePayments`	No	Paiements client de la facture
`amountExcludingTax`	No	Montant HT
`expectedPaymentDate`	No	Date d'échéance/paiement attendu (YYYY-MM-DD)

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.

Changed2 schema fields changedv2.17.0Sep 26, 2026

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

changedInput schema / properties / state / description

Previous value: -"État de la facture"New value: +"État de la facture : ID de `boond://dictionary/states/invoices` (ex: 0 = Création, 1 = Transmis au client)"

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#"

Changed7 schema fields changedv2.8.0Jun 29, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / companyId

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "ID de la société facturée",
-  "type": "string"
-}

removedInput schema / properties / dueDate

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Date d'échéance (YYYY-MM-DD)",
-  "type": "string"
-}

addedInput schema / properties / expectedPaymentDate

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Date d'échéance/paiement attendu (YYYY-MM-DD)",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / invoicePayments

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Paiements client de la facture",
+  "items": {
+    "additionalProperties": {},
+    "propertyNames": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / invoiceRecords

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Lignes de facture Boond",
+  "items": {
+    "additionalProperties": {},
+    "propertyNames": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / orderId

Added value: +{
+  "description": "ID du bon de commande associé",
+  "type": "string"
+}

removedInput schema / properties / projectId

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "ID du projet associé",
-  "type": "string"
-}

Changed1 schema field changedv2.7.0Jun 19, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "id": {
+      "description": "Identifiant de l'entité créée/modifiée",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "type": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv2.1.0May 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds concrete behavioral context by spelling out the consequence: 'Écriture réelle et non idempotente : deux appels identiques créent deux enregistrements (l'API ne déduplique pas).' It also discloses the prerequisite that relation/state IDs must be resolved beforehand and defines the return contract (confirmation, created ID, full record, chainable structuredContent.id). Failure conditions are not covered, but the core behavioral traits are transparently documented.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then organized into scannable sections: 'Quand', 'Plutôt que', behavioral bullets, and a returns line. Every sentence earns its place; the non-idempotency warning and ID-resolution note are precisely the high-value details an agent needs for a 10-parameter create.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The output schema covers return structure, so the description focuses on the real gaps: when to use, non-idempotency risk, and ID-resolution prerequisites. With 0 required parameters it could clarify what a minimal valid call looks like, but for a fully schema-documented, annotation-covered create this is a minor omission.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that 'Les ID de relations et les états/types sont des ID numériques BoondManager, à résoudre au préalable (recherches d'entités, boond://dictionary/*)', giving agents the resolution workflow for state, orderId, and nested record fields that individual parameter descriptions don't provide.

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: 'Crée un(e) facture dans BoondManager.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming boond_invoices_update and boond_invoices_search as different operations, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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' section states the exact trigger condition ('pour ajouter un(e) facture inexistant(e)') and the 'Plutôt que' section names alternatives with their conditions: boond_invoices_update for existing records and boond_invoices_search first to verify non-existence. Selection guidance is explicit, complete, and cites the right siblings.

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

Deploy Server