Basecamp MCP Server

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. 'Update a card' implies a mutation operation but doesn't specify whether it requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to unmentioned fields (partial vs. full updates), or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unexplained.

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

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

The description is extremely concise with just three words, front-loading the core action ('Update a card'). There is zero wasted language or redundancy, making it efficient for quick scanning, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions like purpose clarity and guidelines.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the update behavior (e.g., partial updates allowed?), return values, or error handling. For a tool that modifies data, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage by an AI agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all 6 parameters well-documented in the input schema (e.g., assignee_ids as 'Array of person IDs to assign to the card'). The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting, but doesn't compensate with additional context like format examples or constraints.

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

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

The description 'Update a card' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'move_card' or 'complete_card' that also modify cards, nor does it specify what aspects of a card can be updated (title, content, assignees, etc.). While the verb 'update' is clear, the description lacks the resource details that would make it fully informative.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a project_id and card_id), contrast with siblings like 'move_card' (for changing location) or 'complete_card' (for marking as done), or specify use cases (e.g., editing card details versus other operations). The description assumes context without providing it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.