Skip to main content
Glama
silamir

boondmanager-mcp-server

by silamir
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Rechercher des validations

boond_validations_search
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search pending managerial validations in BoondManager for absences, expenses, and timesheets across a specified month range. Returns validation status only, not document details.

Instructions

Recherche des validations en attente dans BoondManager (absences, notes de frais, feuilles de temps...).

Quand : pour lister ce qui attend une validation managériale sur une plage de mois. Plutôt que : boond_absences_search, boond_expenses_search ou boond_timesheets_search pour les documents eux-mêmes : celui-ci renvoie l'en-cours de validation, pas leur contenu.

⚠️ startMonth et endMonth (YYYY-MM) sont requis par l'API.

Returns: Liste des validations correspondantes.

  • fields : projection côté MCP, jamais transmise à l'API — remplace le résumé par les seuls attributs/relations listés (noms inconnus ignorés). À utiliser sur les grosses pages.

  • Pagination : pageSize 1–500 (défaut 30), page 1–100 — au-delà : refus, affiner les filtres.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoNuméro de page (défaut: 1, max: 100)
fieldsNoProjection : attributs ou relations (type#id) par résultat (ex: ['title','dependsOn']). Absent = résumé standard. Noms inconnus ignorés.
endMonthYesMois de fin YYYY-MM. Requis.
keywordsNoMots-clés. Préfixes acceptés : 'TPS' (CRA), 'EXP' (frais), 'ABS' (absence), 'COMP' (ressource).
pageSizeNoNombre de résultats par page (max: 500, défaut: 30)
startMonthYesMois de début YYYY-MM. Requis.
documentTypesNoTypes de documents à valider.
resourceTypesNoIDs de types de ressource (dictionnaire setting.typeOf.resource).
validationAlertsNoFiltrer sur les validations avec alertes.
validationStatesNoÉtats de validation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.18.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / fields / description
      Previous value: -"Projection : attributs à afficher par résultat (ex: ['title','updateDate']). Absent = résumé standard. Noms inconnus ignorés."New value: +"Projection : attributs ou relations (type#id) par résultat (ex: ['title','dependsOn']). Absent = résumé standard. Noms inconnus ignorés."
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv2.17.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / page / description
      Previous value: -"Numéro de page (max: 100)"New value: +"Numéro de page (défaut: 1, max: 100)"
  3. Changed1 schema field changedv2.12.2
    • removedInput schema / $schema
      Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
  4. Changed1 schema field changedv2.9.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / fields
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Projection : attributs à afficher par résultat (ex: ['title','updateDate']). Absent = résumé standard. Noms inconnus ignorés.",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
  5. First observedv2.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful operational behavior beyond annotations: required API months, MCP-side fields projection that is never sent to the API, and pagination limits with refusal beyond 500/100. It does not describe auth needs or the full response shape, but given the annotation coverage and no output schema, this is a strong addition.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with clearly labeled sections (Quand, Plutôt que, warning, Returns, bullets) and is front-loaded with the core purpose. There is minor redundancy: the required months warning repeats schema-level requiredness, and the Returns line is nearly tautological. Overall efficient and skimmable.

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?

For a 10-parameter search tool with no output schema and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, usage context, alternatives, required months, pagination limits, and projection behavior. It leaves some filter parameters (keywords, documentTypes, resourceTypes, validationAlerts, validationStates) to the schema and does not detail the shape of a validation record, but enough is provided to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds non-obvious semantics for 'fields' (projection is MCP-side, never transmitted to API, replaces the standard summary, use on large pages) and pagination refusal behavior, plus reiterates required months. It does not cover all 10 parameters, but it adds real value beyond the schema for the most behaviorally nuanced ones.

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?

States a specific verb (Recherche) and resource (validations en attente) with domain context, and distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining that it returns pending validation workflow status rather than the underlying documents. An agent can tell it apart from boond_absences_search, boond_expenses_search, and boond_timesheets_search without opening 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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('Quand : pour lister ce qui attend une validation managériale sur une plage de mois') and names the alternatives to avoid ('Plutôt que : boond_absences_search, boond_expenses_search ou boond_timesheets_search pour les documents eux-mêmes'). The condition selecting this tool versus those siblings is unambiguous.

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