Search active Basecamp 2 projects by name to retrieve their IDs, names, and descriptions. Filter with a search term or omit it to list all.
Search for active Basecamp 2 projects by name. Returns id, name, and description. Use a search term to filter — omit to list all.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Case-insensitive search term to filter projects by name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full load. It helpfully discloses scope ('active' projects only, implying archived ones are excluded) and the returned fields (id, name, description), but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or auth despite being a listing operation.
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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and what is returned, with no wasted wording.
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?
With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields and the active-only scope. It omits pagination and result-limit behavior, but is otherwise sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.
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 coverage is 100% (case-insensitive filter is documented there), and the description adds the behavioral meaning of omitting the term ('omit to list all'), which the schema alone does not convey. Slight value-add beyond the baseline.
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 and resource with scope: 'Search for active Basecamp 2 projects by name.' The resource 'projects' is distinguishable from siblings like get_project and list_todolists, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with get_project for a single project.
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?
It explains how to use the search term ('omit to list all'), which is param usage rather than when-to-use guidance. It never states when to choose this over get_project or another sibling, so usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.