Skip to main content
Glama

Get a project's to-do set (via dock)

get_todoset

Retrieve a project's to-do set and lists from Basecamp to manage tasks and track progress.

Instructions

Resolves the project's to-do set by reading the dock; can include lists.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYes
include_listsNo

Implementation Reference

  • Executes the core logic of the 'get_todoset' tool: resolves the todoset ID and URL from the Basecamp project dock, and optionally fetches the list of todo lists.
    async ({ project_id, include_lists }) => {
      const resolved = await getTodosetFromDock(project_id);
      if (!resolved) {
        return {
          content: [
            { type: "text", text: "No to-do set found in the project's dock." },
          ],
        };
      }
      if (!include_lists) {
        return {
          content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(resolved, null, 2) }],
        };
      }
      const lists = await bcRequest<any[]>(
        "GET",
        `/buckets/${project_id}/todosets/${resolved.id}/todolists.json`
      );
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: "text",
            text: JSON.stringify({ todoset: resolved, lists }, null, 2),
          },
        ],
      };
    }
  • Input schema, title, and description for the 'get_todoset' tool, using Zod for validation.
    {
      title: "Get a project's to-do set (via dock)",
      description:
        "Resolves the project's to-do set by reading the dock; can include lists.",
      inputSchema: {
        project_id: z.number().int(),
        include_lists: z.boolean().optional(),
      },
  • Registers the 'get_todoset' tool on the MCP server with its name, schema, and handler function.
    server.registerTool(
      "get_todoset",
      {
        title: "Get a project's to-do set (via dock)",
        description:
          "Resolves the project's to-do set by reading the dock; can include lists.",
        inputSchema: {
          project_id: z.number().int(),
          include_lists: z.boolean().optional(),
        },
      },
      async ({ project_id, include_lists }) => {
        const resolved = await getTodosetFromDock(project_id);
        if (!resolved) {
          return {
            content: [
              { type: "text", text: "No to-do set found in the project's dock." },
            ],
          };
        }
        if (!include_lists) {
          return {
            content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(resolved, null, 2) }],
          };
        }
        const lists = await bcRequest<any[]>(
          "GET",
          `/buckets/${project_id}/todosets/${resolved.id}/todolists.json`
        );
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: "text",
              text: JSON.stringify({ todoset: resolved, lists }, null, 2),
            },
          ],
        };
      }
    );
  • Helper function that queries the Basecamp project dock to extract the todoset ID and URL.
    async function getTodosetFromDock(
      project_id: number
    ): Promise<{ id: number; url: string } | null> {
      const project = await bcRequest<any>("GET", `/projects/${project_id}.json`);
      const dock = Array.isArray(project?.dock) ? project.dock : [];
      const todoset = dock.find((d: any) => (d?.name || d?.app_name) === "todoset");
      if (!todoset) return null;
      const href: string =
        todoset.url || todoset.href || todoset.api_url || todoset.app_url || "";
      const m = href.match(/\/todosets\/(\d+)/);
      return m ? { id: Number(m[1]), url: href } : null;
    }
  • Invokes registerTodosetTools to register the todoset-related tools, including 'get_todoset', on the main MCP server.
    registerTodosetTools(server);
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation ('reading the dock'), which is useful, but doesn't cover critical aspects like error handling (e.g., invalid project_id), performance (e.g., response time), or side effects. It mentions 'can include lists' but doesn't explain the default behavior or implications.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose in a single sentence. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating parameter hints). Every part contributes to understanding, making it efficient but not maximally informative.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values (e.g., format of the to-do set), error cases, and how 'include_lists' modifies the output. For a read tool with zero schema coverage, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only vaguely references 'include_lists' without explaining what lists are, how they relate to the to-do set, or the effect of the boolean. The 'project_id' parameter is implied but not elaborated. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's structure.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Resolves') and resource ('project's to-do set'), and mentions the mechanism ('by reading the dock'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_todo' (write vs read) and 'list_todolists' (project-specific vs general listing), though it could be more explicit about the distinction. The title reinforces this clarity.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid project_id), compare to siblings like 'list_todolists' for broader queries, or specify scenarios where including lists is beneficial. Usage is implied by the purpose but lacks explicit context.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/craigashields/basecamp-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server