boondmanager-mcp-server

Modifier un(e) bon de commande

boond_orders_update

Idempotent

Update an existing purchase order by its ID with partial field updates: only supplied fields are changed, while others remain intact. Array fields are replaced, not merged.

Instructions

Met à jour un(e) bon de commande existant(e), identifié(e) par son ID.

Quand : pour modifier quelques champs d'un enregistrement déjà en base. Plutôt que : boond_orders_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

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	ID du bon de commande à modifier
`note`	No	Notes
`state`	No	État du bon de commande : ID de `boond://dictionary/states/orders`
`endDate`	No	Date de fin couverte (YYYY-MM-DD)
`orderDate`	No	Date (YYYY-MM-DD)
`reference`	No	Référence
`schedules`	No	Lignes/échéances de commande
`startDate`	No	Date de début couverte (YYYY-MM-DD)
`customerAgreement`	No	Accord client reçu
`amountExcludingTax`	No	Montant HT

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.

Changed3 schema fields changedv2.17.0Sep 26, 2026
- removedInput schema / properties / id / minLength
```
Removed value: -1
```
- addedInput schema / properties / id / pattern
```
Added value: +"^\\d+$"
```
- changedInput schema / properties / state / description
```
Previous value: -"État"New value: +"État du bon de commande : ID de `boond://dictionary/states/orders`"
```

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#"

Changed4 schema fields changedv2.8.0Jun 29, 2026

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"
+}

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

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and idempotency (idempotentHint=true). The description goes beyond by disclosing partial update behavior (only provided fields are written), that array fields are replaced rather than merged, and advising a rights check to prevent 403s. This adds significant behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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 clear purpose statement, a 'Quand' section for usage, bullet points for key behaviors, and a returns note. It is front-loaded with the essential action and efficiently organized; every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

For a tool with 10 parameters and a required ID, the description covers purpose, usage, behavior (partial update, array replacement), and returns. An output schema is present, so return details are handled. The guidance on rights checking and distinction from create makes it complete for correct invocation. No critical information 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% with descriptions for all parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining partial update semantics—only provided fields are modified—which clarifies how optional parameters behave. It also warns that array fields (like schedules) are replaced, adding nuance not in the schema. This slightly exceeds 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 updates an existing purchase order identified by ID, using the verb 'Met à jour' with a specific resource. It distinguishes itself from boond_orders_create by explicitly saying to use create when the record doesn't exist, and the update semantics (partial update) differentiate it from read-only siblings.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('pour modifier quelques champs d'un enregistrement déjà en base') and contrasts with boond_orders_create for non-existing records. It also recommends using boond_rights_get to verify permissions before attempting, avoiding a 403 error—clear usage context and exclusion criteria.

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

Deploy Server