Skip to main content
Glama
silamir

boondmanager-mcp-server

by silamir
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Modifier un(e) facture

boond_invoices_update
Idempotent

Update an existing invoice by ID, modifying only the provided fields while leaving others unchanged. Returns confirmation and the updated invoice.

Instructions

Met à jour un(e) facture existant(e), identifié(e) par son ID.

Quand : pour modifier quelques champs d'un enregistrement déjà en base. Plutôt que : boond_invoices_create si l'enregistrement n'existe pas encore.

  • Mise à jour partielle : seuls les champs fournis sont écrits, les autres sont laissés en place.

  • Attention aux champs de type tableau, qui sont remplacés et non fusionnés.

  • boond_rights_get dit si l'utilisateur a ce droit sur l'enregistrement avant d'essayer (un 403 évité).

Returns : confirmation et fiche mise à jour.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesID de la facture à modifier
noteNoNotes
stateNoÉtat de la facture : ID de `boond://dictionary/states/invoices` (ex: 0 = Création, 1 = Transmis au client)
taxRateNoTaux de TVA (%)
referenceNoRéférence de la facture
invoiceDateNoDate de facturation (YYYY-MM-DD)
invoiceRecordsNoLignes de facture Boond
invoicePaymentsNoPaiements client de la facture
amountExcludingTaxNoMontant HT
expectedPaymentDateNoDate d'échéance/paiement attendu (YYYY-MM-DD)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoIdentifiant de l'entité créée/modifiée
typeNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv2.17.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / id / minLength
      Removed value: -1
    • addedInput schema / properties / id / 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)"
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv2.12.2
    • removedInput schema / $schema
      Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
    • removedOutput schema / $schema
      Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
  3. Changed4 schema fields changedv2.8.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / dueDate
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Date d'échéance (YYYY-MM-DD)",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / expectedPaymentDate
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Date d'échéance/paiement attendu (YYYY-MM-DD)",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / invoicePayments
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Paiements client de la facture",
+  "items": {
+    "additionalProperties": {},
+    "propertyNames": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / invoiceRecords
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Lignes de facture Boond",
+  "items": {
+    "additionalProperties": {},
+    "propertyNames": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
  4. Changed1 schema field changedv2.7.0
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$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"
+}
  5. First observedv2.1.0

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: it explains partial-update semantics (only provided fields are written), warns that array fields are replaced rather than merged, and states that the response is a confirmation plus the updated record. The annotations already signal read/write and idempotency, but this description enriches the agent's understanding of side effects.

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 main statement, usage conditions, bullet-point warnings, and a return note. Every sentence contributes useful information, and the key scoping statement is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 10 parameters, full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description provides the missing contextual pieces: when to use it, what partial update means, array replacement behavior, permission checking, and return content. An agent has enough information to invoke this tool correctly.

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 meaningful parameter-related semantics by explaining that only provided fields are written and that array-typed fields are replaced not merged, which affects how `invoiceRecords` and `invoicePayments` should be handled. It does not restate individual field descriptions, but it adds value beyond the schema.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Met à jour un(e) facture existant(e), identifié(e) par son ID.' It explicitly differentiates from the sibling `boond_invoices_create` by noting when each should be used, so an agent can distinguish update from create without inspecting other tools.

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?

It gives an explicit 'Quand' condition for partial updates of existing records, names the alternative `boond_invoices_create` for records that do not exist yet, and advises checking `boond_rights_get` first to avoid a 403. This is clear, actionable guidance for tool selection and invocation.

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