Skip to main content
Glama
silamir

boondmanager-mcp-server

by silamir
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Anticipation des fins de mission

boond_workflow_fin_de_mission
Read-onlyIdempotent

Generates a runbook of Boond API calls to identify assignments ending soon, highlighting those with no replacement, so you can proactively reposition resources.

Instructions

Liste les ressources dont la mission se termine dans les prochains jours, pour anticiper le repositionnement. Met en évidence les fins imminentes sans relais identifié.

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 fin_de_mission 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: 60). Ex: '30' pour ne voir que les fins très proches.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.17.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / horizon_jours / description
      Previous value: -"Nombre de jours à anticiper (défaut: 60). Ex: '30' pour ne voir que les fins très proches."New value: +"Nombre de jours à anticiper — entier (défaut: 60). Ex: '30' pour ne voir que les fins très proches."
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv2.12.2
    • removedInput schema / $schema
      Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
  3. First observedv2.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait beyond annotations: it 'n'appelle aucune API BoondManager et ne lit aucune donnée' and the response is generated server-side. This is not implied by readOnlyHint or idempotentHint; it adds critical insight into what the tool actually does (produces a runbook) without performing real data operations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 organized into clear blocks: summary, 'Quand', 'Plutôt que', no-API note, and 'Returns'. It is reasonably concise, but the 'Quand' section partially repeats the purpose and could be tightened. Still, every sentence contributes useful context, and it is front-loaded.

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 description explains the output is a text runbook with ordered calls and exact filters, which is sufficient for an agent to know how to use the result. Given the tool has no output schema and is a workflow orchestration helper, this is adequate. It also mentions the alternative prompt for context, making the definition complete enough for correct usage.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters (manager_id and horizon_jours) are already well-documented with types, defaults, and resolution behavior. The description does not add extra semantic value beyond naming the horizon implicitly in the first sentence. Per the rubric, baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full burden.

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 action: 'Liste les ressources dont la mission se termine dans les prochains jours' and adds the nuance of highlighting imminent ends without identified relay. It clearly distinguishes this workflow tool from the many sibling workflow tools by naming the specific scenario, so an agent can select it appropriately.

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 provides 'Quand' and 'Plutôt que' sections, naming the alternative MCP prompt and the condition for choosing this tool instead (clients that mishandle prompts/get). It also clarifies that no API call is made, implying this is for generating steps rather than direct data access. This is clear, actionable guidance.

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