Skip to main content
Glama
silamir

boondmanager-mcp-server

by silamir
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Fins de contrat et périodes d'essai à venir

boond_workflow_alertes_contrats
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves a runbook of upcoming contract expirations and trial period endings to plan renewals, terminations, and interviews. Lists exact Boond API calls with filters for the given horizon.

Instructions

Liste les contrats de travail qui se terminent et les périodes d'essai qui expirent dans les prochains jours sur un périmètre, pour anticiper renouvellements, ruptures et entretiens de fin de PE.

Quand : pour dérouler ce scénario multi-étapes sans avoir à retrouver soi-même le bon enchaînement d'outils et les bons noms de filtres. Plutôt que : le prompt MCP alertes_contrats si le client l'expose — contenu identique, sans consommer un appel d'outil. Cette variante existe pour les clients qui traitent mal prompts/get (claude.ai notamment).

  • N'appelle aucune API BoondManager et ne lit aucune donnée : la réponse est générée côté serveur MCP.

Returns : un runbook en texte — la liste ordonnée des appels Boond à effectuer, avec les filtres exacts. C'est ensuite au modèle de les exécuter ; rien n'est fait par cet appel.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
manager_idNoManager pour restreindre à son équipe. Accepte soit l'ID numérique, soit « Prénom Nom » (le serveur résoudra automatiquement via `boond_resources_search`). Si absent, scope = mon équipe via `perimeterDynamic: ['managers']`.
horizon_joursNoNombre de jours à anticiper — entier (défaut: 45). Ex: '30' pour les échéances les plus proches.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv2.17.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds critical context beyond annotations: it makes no BoondManager API call, reads no data, generates the response server-side, and leaves execution of the returned runbook to the model. This fully clarifies the tool's side-effect profile.

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 labeled sections for purpose, when to use, alternatives, behavior, and return value. It is somewhat verbose and repeats the idea that nothing is executed by the call, but the key information is front-loaded and scannable.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately explains the return value: a text runbook with ordered Boond calls and exact filters, and that the model must execute them. It also covers the no-side-effect behavior. It lacks examples or error-handling notes, but for this workflow tool the essential context is present.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters in detail, including defaults and the manager resolution behavior. The description mentions 'périmètre' and 'filtres exacts' but adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific purpose: listing upcoming contract endings and expiring trial periods to anticipate renewals, ruptures, and end-of-trial interviews. It also clarifies that the output is a runbook of Boond calls, distinguishing it from direct data tools. However, the first sentence could be misread as actually querying data, while later text says no data is read, creating slight ambiguity.

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 'Quand' section explicitly states when to use the tool: to run a multi-step scenario without having to find the right tool sequence and filter names. The 'Plutôt que' section names the alternative MCP prompt `alertes_contrats` and gives the condition for preferring it, which is clear and actionable.

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