Skip to main content
Glama
jhliberty

Basecamp MCP Server

by jhliberty

get_card_steps

Retrieve all sub-tasks (steps) associated with a specific card in Basecamp projects by providing the project ID and card ID for streamlined task management.

Instructions

Get all steps (sub-tasks) for a card

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
card_idYesThe card ID
project_idYesThe project ID

Implementation Reference

  • MCP tool handler for 'get_card_steps': calls BasecampClient.getCardSteps with project_id and card_id, then returns a JSON-formatted response with the steps and count.
    case 'get_card_steps': {
      const steps = await client.getCardSteps(typedArgs.project_id, typedArgs.card_id);
      return {
        content: [{
          type: 'text',
          text: JSON.stringify({
            status: 'success',
            steps,
            count: steps.length
          }, null, 2)
        }]
      };
    }
  • Tool registration and input schema definition for 'get_card_steps', specifying required project_id and card_id parameters.
      name: 'get_card_steps',
      description: 'Get all steps (sub-tasks) for a card',
      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 getCardSteps: fetches the full card details and extracts/returns its steps array.
    async getCardSteps(projectId: string, cardId: string): Promise<CardStep[]> {
      const card = await this.getCard(projectId, cardId);
      return card.steps || [];
    }
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. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't confirm if it's safe, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what the output format looks like (e.g., list of steps with details). For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get all steps') and resource ('for a card'). There is zero waste—every word earns its place by directly conveying the tool's purpose without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 (a read operation with 2 required parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like safety, output format, or error handling, which are crucial for an agent to use it correctly. While concise, it fails to provide enough context for reliable tool invocation in a broader workflow.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('card_id' and 'project_id') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond implying they are needed to fetch steps for a specific card. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't 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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('all steps (sub-tasks) for a card'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_card' (which retrieves card metadata) or 'get_todos' (which retrieves different task types). However, it doesn't explicitly mention that this is for retrieving sub-tasks specifically within a card context, which could be slightly more precise.

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 card ID from 'get_card' or 'get_cards'), exclusions (e.g., not for top-level tasks), or comparisons to similar tools like 'get_todos' (which might handle different task types). Without this, an agent might misuse it in inappropriate contexts.

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