get_my_submissionRetrieve your submitted work for a Canvas assignment by providing course and assignment IDs. Returns redacted file URLs without altering any data.
Read my submission for one assignment. This is read-only and returns redacted URLs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| course_id | Yes | Canvas course ID | |
| assignment_id | Yes | Canvas assignment ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'This is read-only' and 'returns redacted URLs,' which tells the agent the operation is safe and that output is privacy-masked. It doesn't cover auth requirements or error behavior, but for a simple read tool this is meaningful and non-obvious context.
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?
Two short sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core purpose and scope, the second adds behavioral and output information. No redundancy or filler.
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 two-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema, the description covers the key non-obvious aspects: read-only behavior and redacted URL output. It is slightly incomplete in not mentioning how this relates to list_my_submissions or download_my_submission_files, but nothing critical is missing for a correct call.
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 clear descriptions ('Canvas course ID' and 'Canvas assignment ID'), so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, matching the baseline of 3 for high coverage.
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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('my submission for one assignment'), clearly distinguishing it from list_my_submissions (multiple submissions) and download_my_submission_files (download vs read). The addition 'returns redacted URLs' further pins down the tool's purpose without ambiguity.
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 phrase 'for one assignment' implies when to use this tool versus listing or downloading submissions, but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling to prefer in alternate scenarios. The intended context is inferable, not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.