boondmanager-mcp-server

Supprimer un(e) projet

boond_projects_delete

Destructive

Permanently delete a project from BoondManager by its numeric ID, after verifying with boond_projects_get. Prefer boond_projects_update to deactivate or change state; this action is irreversible and requires explicit user confirmation.

Instructions

Supprime définitivement un(e) projet de BoondManager.

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

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Identifiant unique de l'entité BoondManager (numérique)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`reason`	No	Présent quand la suppression n'a pas eu lieu (ex: refus utilisateur)
`deleted`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

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 changedv2.7.0Jun 19, 2026

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"
+}

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?

The description discloses irreversibility ('Irréversible, sans corbeille côté API'), the conditional confirmation behavior based on the MCP client's elicitation capability, and the exact return contract ({ id, deleted, reason? }). This goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true) by explaining the user-refusal path and the deleted:false outcome.

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 clear sections (Quand, Plutôt que, pre-check, warning, return contract). Every sentence earns its place, and the most critical information (irreversibility, confirmation behavior) is front-loaded.

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 destructive single-parameter tool, the description covers all necessary context: when to use, what to check first, how to avoid 403s, what the confirmation flow is, and what the return value means. The output schema exists, so return values are already structured, and the description adds the semantic meaning of deleted:false.

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?

The schema already covers the single parameter (id) with a pattern and description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying that the ID must be verified beforehand via boond_projects_get, which gives the agent a concrete pre-condition for using the parameter correctly.

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 specific verb ('Supprime définitivement') and resource ('un(e) projet de BoondManager'), making the action unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from boond_projects_update, which is the key sibling alternative.

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 says when to use it ('uniquement sur demande explicite de l'utilisateur, et après avoir vérifié l'ID avec boond_projects_get') and when not to ('Plutôt que : boond_projects_update pour désactiver ou changer l'état'). It also references boond_rights_get as a pre-check to avoid 403 errors.

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

Deploy Server