Skip to main content
Glama
jhliberty

Basecamp MCP Server

by jhliberty
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Hybrid

trash_document

Move a document to the trash in Basecamp by specifying the project ID and document ID. This tool helps declutter workspaces and manage content efficiently within the Basecamp MCP Server.

Instructions

Move a document to trash

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
document_idYesDocument ID
project_idYesProject ID

Implementation Reference

  • src/lib/basecamp-client.ts:366-368 (handler)
    The trashDocument method in BasecampClient class that implements the core logic of trashing a document by sending a DELETE request to the Basecamp API.
    async trashDocument(projectId: string, documentId: string): Promise<void> {
  await this.client.delete(`/buckets/${projectId}/documents/${documentId}.json`);
}
  • src/index.ts:447-458 (registration)
    Registers the 'trash_document' tool in the MCP server's list of tools, providing the name, description, and input schema.
    {
  name: 'trash_document',
  description: 'Move a document to trash',
  inputSchema: {
    type: 'object',
    properties: {
      project_id: { type: 'string', description: 'Project ID' },
      document_id: { type: 'string', description: 'Document ID' },
    },
    required: ['project_id', 'document_id'],
  },
},
  • src/index.ts:447-458 (schema)
    Defines the input schema for the 'trash_document' tool, specifying required project_id and document_id parameters.
    {
  name: 'trash_document',
  description: 'Move a document to trash',
  inputSchema: {
    type: 'object',
    properties: {
      project_id: { type: 'string', description: 'Project ID' },
      document_id: { type: 'string', description: 'Document ID' },
    },
    required: ['project_id', 'document_id'],
  },
},

Tool Definition Quality

C2.9/5.0
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. 'Move a document to trash' implies a destructive mutation (trashing), but it doesn't specify whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens to related data (e.g., associated comments or files). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 ('Move a document to trash') that front-loads the core action. It wastes no words and is appropriately sized for a simple tool, earning a perfect score for 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 destructive mutation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like reversibility, error conditions, or return values. For a tool that modifies state, this leaves critical gaps for an agent to operate safely and effectively.

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 description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('document_id' and 'project_id') documented in the schema. The baseline is 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description doesn't compensate with additional context like format examples or interdependencies.

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 'Move a document to trash' clearly states the verb ('move') and resource ('document'), with the destination ('to trash') specifying the action. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_webhook' or 'update_document' by focusing on trashing rather than permanent deletion or modification. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'create_document' is clearly different), so it's not a perfect 5.

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., document must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot trash already-trashed documents), or alternatives (e.g., permanent deletion tools if available). This leaves the agent without context for decision-making.

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