Skip to main content
Glama
jhliberty

Basecamp MCP Server

by jhliberty

get_comments

Retrieve comments for a specific Basecamp item using the item ID and project ID to manage discussions and feedback efficiently within Basecamp 3.

Instructions

Get comments for a Basecamp item

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesThe project ID
recording_idYesThe item ID

Implementation Reference

  • Core handler function that executes the tool logic: fetches comments via Basecamp API for the given project and recording.
    async getComments(projectId: string, recordingId: string): Promise<Comment[]> {
      const response = await this.client.get(`/buckets/${projectId}/recordings/${recordingId}/comments.json`);
      return response.data;
    }
  • MCP CallToolRequestHandler case for 'get_comments': extracts arguments, calls BasecampClient.getComments, formats JSON response.
    case 'get_comments': {
      const comments = await client.getComments(typedArgs.project_id, typedArgs.recording_id);
      return {
        content: [{
          type: 'text',
          text: JSON.stringify({
            status: 'success',
            comments,
            count: comments.length
          }, null, 2)
        }]
      };
    }
  • src/index.ts:393-404 (registration)
    Registration of the 'get_comments' tool in ListToolsResponse, including description and input schema.
    {
      name: 'get_comments',
      description: 'Get comments for a Basecamp item',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          recording_id: { type: 'string', description: 'The item ID' },
          project_id: { type: 'string', description: 'The project ID' },
        },
        required: ['recording_id', 'project_id'],
      },
    },
  • TypeScript interface defining the structure of a Comment object returned by the tool.
    export interface Comment {
      id: string;
      content: string;
      created_at: string;
      updated_at: string;
      creator: Person;
    }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does ('Get comments') without mentioning permissions needed, rate limits, pagination behavior, error conditions, or what format the comments are returned in. This leaves critical operational context unspecified.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves data. It doesn't explain what 'comments' entail, how they're structured, whether there are limitations on retrieval, or what authentication is required. For a data-fetching tool with zero structured metadata, this leaves too many operational questions unanswered.

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%, so both parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides about 'project_id' and 'recording_id', maintaining the baseline score for adequate schema coverage.

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 ('comments for a Basecamp item'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_campfire_lines' or 'get_question_answers' that also retrieve specific content types, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this tool over others.

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. With siblings like 'global_search' and 'search_basecamp' that might also retrieve comments, there's no indication of when this specific comment-fetching tool is preferred or what its limitations are.

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