Skip to main content
Glama
silamir

boondmanager-mcp-server

by silamir
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Supprimer une facture

boond_invoices_delete
Destructive

Permanently delete an invoice from BoondManager after verifying its ID. Use update instead to deactivate without destroying data. Requires explicit user confirmation.

Instructions

Supprime définitivement un(e) facture de BoondManager.

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint: true), the description discloses that the operation is irreversible and has no trash/undo in the API. It also explains the elicitation flow: if the MCP client supports elicitation, a confirmation is requested and a refusal cancels the call, returning deleted:false with a reason. The return structure is described. These details go well beyond what annotations already provide.

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 bullet points and sections, front-loading the core purpose and then covering usage conditions, alternatives, and return format. Every sentence adds value; there is no fluff. The structure makes it easy for an agent to scan and extract the key information.

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 tool is a destructive delete with annotations covering the destructive nature, the description adds all necessary context: when to use, what to verify, irreversibility, confirmation behavior, and the return object. It also specifies the output format, so an agent knows how to interpret the response. Nothing needed for correct invocation 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?

The schema already fully describes the id parameter (type, pattern, description), so the baseline is 3. The description adds a usage hint to verify the ID via boond_invoices_get, which is contextual but not strictly parameter semantics. No additional parameter details are given, so the score remains at the baseline.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: permanently delete an invoice from BoondManager. It uses a specific verb ('Supprime définitivement') and resource ('facture'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling boond_invoices_update by explaining that update should be used for disabling or changing state without destruction. The purpose is 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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool ('uniquement sur demande explicite de l'utilisateur'), prerequisites (verify ID with boond_invoices_get), and the alternative (boond_invoices_update for non-destructive changes). It also recommends checking rights via boond_rights_get before attempting. This gives clear, actionable guidance on when to invoke it versus alternatives.

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