Skip to main content
Glama
silamir

boondmanager-mcp-server

by silamir
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Récap hebdomadaire (moi + mon équipe)

boond_workflow_recap_hebdo
Read-onlyIdempotent

Generate a step-by-step runbook of BoondManager API calls to recap this week's opportunities, projects, absences, and CRA for you and your team, including exact filters to execute.

Instructions

Compile en une vue ce qui s'est passé / va se passer cette semaine pour moi et mon équipe : opportunités, projets, absences, CRA.

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 recap_hebdo 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
semaineNoSemaine ciblée (ex: 'cette semaine', 'semaine dernière', 'semaine prochaine', '2026-W14'). Défaut: cette semaine. Résolue en dates ISO côté serveur.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.17.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / semaine / description
      Previous value: -"Semaine ciblée (ex: 'cette semaine', 'la semaine prochaine'). Défaut: cette semaine."New value: +"Semaine ciblée (ex: 'cette semaine', 'semaine dernière', 'semaine prochaine', '2026-W14'). Défaut: cette semaine. Résolue en dates ISO côté serveur."
  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

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by clearly stating it calls no BoondManager API, reads no data, and generates the response server-side. It also discloses that nothing is executed by this call and that the model must run the returned runbook afterward. This is excellent behavioral transparency with no contradiction.

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 with clear sections ('Quand', 'Plutôt que', 'Returns') and front-loads the core purpose. It is somewhat longer than necessary, with slight redundancy between 'N'appelle aucune API... ne lit aucune donnée' and 'rien n'est fait par cet appel', but each section earns its place.

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?

Given no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns: a text runbook with ordered Boond calls and exact filters. It also clarifies the execution model, the no-side-effect nature, and the alternative prompt path. An agent has enough context to invoke this tool correctly and interpret its result.

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?

The input schema already covers the single parameter `semaine` with a clear description and example values, so the schema carries the semantic burden. The tool description does not add any additional parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema description coverage.

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 states a specific purpose: compile a weekly recap runbook for the user and their team covering opportunities, projects, absences, and CRA. It clearly distinguishes this from direct data tools by explaining it returns an ordered list of Boond calls rather than data. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar workflow siblings like boond_workflow_synthese_equipe.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly provides 'Quand' guidance: use it to run a multi-step scenario without figuring out the tool chain and filter names yourself. It also names the alternative MCP prompt `recap_hebdo` and explains when this tool variant is preferable, which is strong usage guidance. It does not, however, discuss when not to use it relative to other workflow tools.

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