Retrieve details for a specific Basecamp 2 project by its project ID. Use it to fetch project information for reports, updates, or task management.
Get details of a specific project
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes | The project ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about read-only nature, authentication needs, or return shape. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter, though it is almost too terse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations). The description covers the basic purpose but omits any behavioral context such as read-only semantics or expected response. Adequate but with clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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 the single required project_id parameter. The description adds no parameter details beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (Get) and resource (project) with scope (specific project). Distinguishes from list_projects by implying single-item retrieval, though it does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings like get_project_accesses or list_projects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use guidance, no alternatives mentioned, and no exclusions. The agent must infer that this is for fetching one project by ID rather than listing projects.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.