Skip to main content
Glama
jhliberty

Basecamp MCP Server

by jhliberty

complete_card

Mark a card as complete in Basecamp 3 by specifying the project ID and card ID. Streamline task management and track progress effectively using this API tool.

Instructions

Mark a card as complete

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
card_idYesThe card ID
project_idYesThe project ID

Implementation Reference

  • MCP tool handler/dispatch for 'complete_card': calls client.completeCard and returns success response.
    case 'complete_card': {
      await client.completeCard(typedArgs.project_id, typedArgs.card_id);
      return {
        content: [{
          type: 'text',
          text: JSON.stringify({
            status: 'success',
            message: 'Card marked as complete'
          }, null, 2)
        }]
      };
  • Tool schema definition including inputSchema for 'complete_card' provided in listTools response (tool registration).
    {
      name: 'complete_card',
      description: 'Mark a card as complete',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          project_id: { type: 'string', description: 'The project ID' },
          card_id: { type: 'string', description: 'The card ID' },
        },
        required: ['project_id', 'card_id'],
      },
    },
  • Core implementation of completeCard: POST to Basecamp API endpoint to mark card as complete.
    async completeCard(projectId: string, cardId: string): Promise<any> {
      const response = await this.client.post(`/buckets/${projectId}/todos/${cardId}/completion.json`);
      return response.data;
    }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Mark a card as complete' implies a mutation operation, but it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether the action is reversible, side effects (e.g., notifications, status changes), or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key contextual aspects such as what 'complete' means in this system, potential side effects, return values, or error conditions. This makes it inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's operation and implications.

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 has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both 'card_id' and 'project_id'. The description does not add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining why both IDs are required or how they relate to the completion action. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 'Mark a card as complete' clearly states the action (mark as complete) and resource (a card), which is specific and actionable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'complete_card_step' or 'update_card', which might have overlapping or related functionality, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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. For example, it does not specify if this is for final completion versus incremental steps (compared to 'complete_card_step') or if it should be used instead of 'update_card' for completion status. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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

Related 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/jhliberty/basecamp-mcp-server'

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