boondmanager-mcp-server

Créer un achat/sous-traitance

boond_purchases_create

Creates a purchase or subcontracting line to commit a supplier expense against a project, returning the purchase ID for tracking.

Instructions

Crée un achat ou une ligne de sous-traitance.

Quand : pour engager une dépense fournisseur, généralement rattachée à un projet. Plutôt que : boond_provider_invoices_create pour la facture reçue du fournisseur — l'achat est l'engagement, la facture fournisseur en est le règlement attendu.

Écriture non idempotente.
Les ID de société, contact et projet sont des ID numériques BoondManager, à résoudre au préalable via les recherches correspondantes.

Returns : confirmation et fiche de l'achat créé, avec son ID dans structuredContent.id.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No	Notes / commentaires
`state`	No	État de l'achat : ID de `boond://dictionary/states/purchases`
`title`	No	Titre de l'achat/sous-traitance
`endDate`	No	Date de fin (YYYY-MM-DD)
`companyId`	No	ID de la société fournisseur
`contactId`	No	ID du contact fournisseur
`projectId`	No	ID du projet associé
`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.

Changed5 schema fields changedv2.17.0Sep 26, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / companyId / pattern
```
Added value: +"^\\d+$"
```
addedInput schema / properties / contactId / pattern
```
Added value: +"^\\d+$"
```
addedInput schema / properties / projectId / pattern
```
Added value: +"^\\d+$"
```

changedInput schema / properties / state / description

Previous value: -"État de l'achat"New value: +"État de l'achat : ID de `boond://dictionary/states/purchases`"

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "id": {
+      "description": "Identifiant de l'entité créée/modifiée",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "type": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedv2.12.2Aug 14, 2026
- removedInput schema / $schema
```
Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
```

Changed2 schema fields changedv2.8.0Jun 29, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / contactId

Added value: +{
+  "description": "ID du contact fournisseur",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / title

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Titre de l'achat/sous-traitance",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedv2.1.0May 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=false, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces non-idempotence and adds the requirement to resolve company, contact, and project IDs beforehand, which is beyond the schema. It also states the return includes the created purchase record with its ID. No contradictions with annotations. It adds context about the semantic difference from provider invoices, but doesn't delve into authorization or side effects beyond creation—acceptable given annotation coverage.

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 compact and well-structured: purpose first, then when-to-use, then caveats, then return information. No redundant sentences. It is front-loaded with the core action and distinguishes from the key sibling. Every line earns its place.

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?

The tool has 8 optional parameters, no required fields, and an output schema (indicated by context). The description covers the primary use case, prerequisites, and return structure (ID in structuredContent.id). It doesn't explain state dictionary or other parameter details, but those are covered by the schema. For a create operation, the description provides enough context for correct invocation, though it could mention the state dictionary reference.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are described in the schema. The description adds value by clarifying that company, contact, and project IDs are BoondManager numeric IDs and must be resolved via searches first, which supplements the schema's basic descriptions. It does not elaborate on other parameters like state, but that is adequately documented in the schema. This is more than the baseline 3.

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 action: 'Crée un achat ou une ligne de sous-traitance' (creates a purchase/subcontracting line), and specifies the context (engaging a supplier expense, usually attached to a project). It also explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool boond_provider_invoices_create, explaining the semantic difference (purchase is the commitment, provider invoice is the settlement). This gives a precise and distinguishing purpose.

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 usage guidance: 'Quand : pour engager une dépense fournisseur' (when to use) and 'Plutôt que : boond_provider_invoices_create' (alternative and why). It also notes prerequisites (IDs must be resolved via searches) and the non-idempotent nature. This fully covers when to use this tool vs alternatives.

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

Deploy Server