Skip to main content
Glama
silamir

boondmanager-mcp-server

by silamir

Rechercher des notifications

boond_notifications_search
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search BoondManager notifications by required category (activity, thread, corporate), with filters for read state and parent type. Retrieves messages, not records needing validation actions.

Instructions

Recherche des notifications dans BoondManager.

Plutôt que : boond_validations_search pour ce qui requiert réellement une action de validation — une notification n'est qu'un message.

⚠️ Le paramètre category est REQUIS par l'API (singulier, pas de tableau).

Returns: Liste des notifications correspondantes.

  • fields : projection côté MCP, jamais transmise à l'API — remplace le résumé par les seuls attributs/relations listés (noms inconnus ignorés). À utiliser sur les grosses pages.

  • Pagination : pageSize 1–500 (défaut 30), page 1–100 — au-delà : refus, affiner les filtres.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoNuméro de page (défaut: 1, max: 100)
stateNoFiltrer par état de lecture.
fieldsNoProjection : attributs ou relations (type#id) par résultat (ex: ['title','dependsOn']). Absent = résumé standard. Noms inconnus ignorés.
categoryYesCatégorie (requis): 'activity' (notifications d'activité), 'thread' (messages), 'corporate' (annonces).
pageSizeNoNombre de résultats par page (max: 500, défaut: 30)
parentTypeNoTypes de modules parents (ex: 'contract', 'global', 'project'...).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.18.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / fields / description
      Previous value: -"Projection : attributs à afficher par résultat (ex: ['title','updateDate']). Absent = résumé standard. Noms inconnus ignorés."New value: +"Projection : attributs ou relations (type#id) par résultat (ex: ['title','dependsOn']). Absent = résumé standard. Noms inconnus ignorés."
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv2.17.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / page / description
      Previous value: -"Numéro de page (max: 100)"New value: +"Numéro de page (défaut: 1, max: 100)"
  3. Changed1 schema field changedv2.12.2
    • removedInput schema / $schema
      Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
  4. Changed1 schema field changedv2.9.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / fields
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Projection : attributs à afficher par résultat (ex: ['title','updateDate']). Absent = résumé standard. Noms inconnus ignorés.",
      +  "items": {
      +    "type": "string"
      +  },
      +  "type": "array"
      +}
  5. First observedv2.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context: `fields` is an MCP-side projection never sent to the API, and pagination beyond page 100 / pageSize 500 is refused and requires refining filters. That refusal behavior is genuine disclosure beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded purpose, a single warning line, a returns line, and two tight bullets. Well structured with no filler. The `fields` bullet largely restates the schema's own description, which is minor redundancy rather than padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description does supply a returns line and covers the required parameter, the projection escape hatch, and pagination bounds. It does not describe what a notification record contains, but the `fields` parameter and the sibling `boond_notifications_get` cover that reasonably for a search tool.

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 on top: it warns that `category` is API-required and singular (not an array), and that `fields` is applied client-side with unknown names ignored. These details are not fully captured by the schema alone.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Recherche des notifications dans BoondManager" states a clear verb (search) and resource (notifications). It also distinguishes itself from the nearest ambiguous sibling, boond_validations_search, by clarifying that a notification is just a message. Clear and specific, though the differentiation lives in the usage sentence rather than the purpose statement itself.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly names an alternative and the condition that selects it: use boond_validations_search when an actual validation action is required, because notifications are only messages. This is a genuine when-not rule. It gives no similar guidance relative to boond_notifications_get, so it stops short of full routing coverage.

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