boondmanager-mcp-server

Modifier un(e) projet

boond_projects_update

Idempotent

Update an existing project by ID with partial field updates. Modify only the fields you provide, leaving others unchanged. Ideal for adjusting specific project details without recreating the record.

Instructions

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

Quand : pour modifier quelques champs d'un enregistrement déjà en base. Plutôt que : boond_projects_create si l'enregistrement n'existe pas encore, ou boond_find pour résoudre un nom / un e-mail en ID.

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 projet à modifier
`name`	No	Nom du projet
`note`	No	Notes
`state`	No	État du projet
`typeOf`	No	Type de projet (ID du dictionnaire setting.typeOf.project)
`endDate`	No	Date de fin (YYYY-MM-DD)
`startDate`	No	Date de début (YYYY-MM-DD)

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.

Changed2 schema fields changedv2.17.0Sep 26, 2026
- removedInput schema / properties / id / minLength
```
Removed value: -1
```
- addedInput schema / properties / id / pattern
```
Added value: +"^\\d+$"
```

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#"

Changed1 schema field changedv2.8.0Jun 29, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / typeOf

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Type de projet (ID du dictionnaire setting.typeOf.project)",
+  "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+  "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+  "type": "integer"
+}

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 convey readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context beyond this: partial-update semantics (only provided fields are written), a warning that array fields are replaced rather than merged, and a suggestion to check rights before updating to avoid a 403.

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 'Quand/Plutôt que', followed by concise bullets and a Returns line. Every sentence provides useful information with no filler or 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 mutation tool with 7 parameters, an output schema, and annotations, the description covers when to use it, alternatives, partial-update mechanics, permission pre-checking, and what is returned. The only minor gap is that the array warning doesn't match the provided schema, but the tool remains fully callable with the information given.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful partial-update behavior that applies to all parameters, which goes beyond the schema. However, the array-replacement warning references fields that do not exist in this scalar-only schema, slightly diluting its relevance.

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 opens with 'Met à jour un(e) projet existant(e), identifié(e) par son ID', giving a specific verb (update), resource (project), and scope (by ID). It also explicitly contrasts itself with boond_projects_create and boond_find, making sibling differentiation clear without needing to inspect schemas.

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 provides an explicit 'Quand' section (modify a few fields of an existing record) and a 'Plutôt que' section (use create for new records, use find to resolve names/emails to IDs). It also recommends boond_rights_get as a pre-flight permission check, giving the agent actionable decision-making guidance.

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

Deploy Server