Skip to main content
Glama
jhliberty

Basecamp MCP Server

by jhliberty

get_todos

Retrieve todos from a specific todo list in Basecamp by providing the project ID and todo list ID. Simplifies task management through direct API integration.

Instructions

Get todos from a todo list

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesProject ID
todolist_idYesThe todo list ID

Implementation Reference

  • MCP tool handler for 'get_todos' that authenticates the client, calls BasecampClient.getTodos, and returns formatted JSON response.
    case 'get_todos': {
      const todos = await client.getTodos(typedArgs.project_id, typedArgs.todolist_id);
      return {
        content: [{
          type: 'text',
          text: JSON.stringify({
            status: 'success',
            todos,
            count: todos.length
          }, null, 2)
        }]
      };
    }
  • src/index.ts:163-174 (registration)
    Tool registration in ListTools handler defining name, description, and input schema for 'get_todos'.
    {
      name: 'get_todos',
      description: 'Get todos from a todo list',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          project_id: { type: 'string', description: 'Project ID' },
          todolist_id: { type: 'string', description: 'The todo list ID' },
        },
        required: ['project_id', 'todolist_id'],
      },
    },
  • BasecampClient method implementing the API call to fetch todos from a specific todolist in a project.
    async getTodos(projectId: string, todolistId: string): Promise<Todo[]> {
      const response = await this.client.get(`/buckets/${projectId}/todolists/${todolistId}/todos.json`);
      return response.data;
    }
  • TypeScript interface defining the structure of Todo objects returned by the get_todos tool.
    export interface Todo {
      id: string;
      content: string;
      description?: string;
      completed: boolean;
      due_on?: string;
      created_at: string;
      updated_at: string;
      assignees?: Person[];
      creator: Person;
      project?: ProjectInfo;
      todolist?: { id: string; name: string; };
    }
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 a read operation ('Get'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, return format (e.g., list structure, pagination), or error handling. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single, straightforward sentence with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse. However, it's overly brief and could benefit from front-loading more critical details (e.g., scope or limitations) to enhance utility without sacrificing conciseness.

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 tool's complexity (a read operation with 2 required parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key contextual elements like what data is returned, how errors are handled, or any constraints, leaving the agent under-informed for effective use.

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 parameter names and types, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra semantic context beyond implying that 'todos' are retrieved from a 'todo list', which is already inferred from the parameter names. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters or usage examples.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the action ('Get') and resource ('todos from a todo list'), which clarifies the basic purpose. However, it doesn't specify whether this retrieves all todos, filtered todos, or paginated results, and it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'get_cards' or 'get_todolists' beyond the resource type. This makes it vague about scope and 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a project and todolist ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_cards' or 'global_search'. Without such context, an agent might misuse it or overlook better options.

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