get_todoFetches your Canvas to-do list of assignments and discussions that still need attention, with due dates, so you can identify outstanding coursework.
Your Canvas to-do list: assignments and discussions Canvas says still need attention, with due dates. Example: "What does Canvas say I still need to do?"
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful constraint that only items Canvas marks as needing attention are returned, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or whether completed items linger.
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?
One declarative sentence establishing what is returned, followed by a short example utterance. Front-loaded, no filler, and every clause earns its place.
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?
For a zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly and anticipate content (assignments and discussions with due dates). A brief note on entry contents or ordering would make it fully complete.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description is needed to explain inputs, and it correctly presents this as a parameterless call.
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?
States a specific verb (get) and resource (Canvas to-do list) and defines scope: assignments and discussions that Canvas flags as still needing attention, with due dates. That scope implicitly separates it from get_assignments and get_upcoming_due_dates, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
The example question ("What does Canvas say I still need to do?") implies when to reach for this tool, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose it over get_missing_assignments, get_upcoming_due_dates, or get_assignments. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.