Skip to main content
Glama
silamir

boondmanager-mcp-server

by silamir
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Créer un(e) bon de commande

boond_orders_create

Create a new purchase order in BoondManager with required fields including company, project, dates, and amount. Verify absence first to prevent duplicates.

Instructions

Crée un(e) bon de commande dans BoondManager.

Quand : pour ajouter un(e) bon de commande inexistant(e). Plutôt que : boond_orders_update pour modifier un enregistrement existant, et boond_orders_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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteNoNotes / commentaires
stateNoÉtat du bon de commande : ID de `boond://dictionary/states/orders`
endDateNoDate de fin couverte (YYYY-MM-DD)
companyIdNoID de la société
orderDateNoDate du bon de commande (YYYY-MM-DD)
projectIdNoID du projet associé
referenceNoRéférence du bon de commande
schedulesNoLignes/échéances de commande
startDateNoDate de début couverte (YYYY-MM-DD)
customerAgreementNoAccord client reçu
amountExcludingTaxNoMontant HT

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
    • addedInput schema / properties / companyId / pattern
      Added value: +"^\\d+$"
    • addedInput schema / properties / projectId / pattern
      Added value: +"^\\d+$"
    • changedInput schema / properties / state / description
      Previous value: -"État du bon de commande"New value: +"État du bon de commande : ID de `boond://dictionary/states/orders`"
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv2.12.2
    • removedInput schema / $schema
      Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
    • removedOutput schema / $schema
      Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
  3. Changed4 schema fields changedv2.8.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / customerAgreement
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Accord client reçu",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / endDate
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Date de fin couverte (YYYY-MM-DD)",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / schedules
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Lignes/échéances de commande",
+  "items": {
+    "additionalProperties": {},
+    "propertyNames": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / startDate
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Date de début couverte (YYYY-MM-DD)",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  4. Changed1 schema field changedv2.7.0
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the call is a real write and non-idempotent: 'deux appels identiques créent deux enregistrements (l'API ne déduplique pas)'. It also warns that relation IDs and state/type IDs must be resolved beforehand via boond://dictionary/*, adding actionable context. This is consistent with annotations, so no contradiction.

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 and front-loaded: purpose first, then when/rather-than, then key behavioral notes, then returns. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 11 optional parameters and the existence of an output schema, the description covers all essential invocation context: when to create, how to avoid duplicates, the need to resolve dictionary IDs, and the reusable structuredContent.id for chaining. Nothing important is missing.

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 goes further by explaining that relation IDs and states/types are BoondManager numeric IDs that must be resolved beforehand (entity searches, boond://dictionary/*), which adds meaning that applies across parameters like state, companyId, and projectId.

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 'Crée un bon de commande dans BoondManager' (creates a purchase order in BoondManager), specifying the exact verb and resource. It also differentiates the tool from siblings by naming boond_orders_update and boond_orders_search as alternatives.

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 this tool ('pour ajouter un bon de commande inexistant') and when not to, directing users to boond_orders_update for existing records and boond_orders_search for duplicate checks. This is precise and leaves no ambiguity.

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