list_my_submissionsRetrieve your submitted assignments for a specific Canvas course using its course ID. Optionally filter to show only submissions with work or attachments.
List my submissions for one Canvas course. This is read-only and returns redacted URLs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| course_id | Yes | Canvas course ID | |
| submitted_only | No | Only include assignments with submitted work or attachments |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden and does state two key behaviors: the operation is read-only and it returns redacted URLs. This is meaningful disclosure, though it leaves out details like pagination, empty results, or permissions.
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 tight sentences: the first states purpose, the second discloses behavior and output format. No filler or repetition.
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 simple two-parameter list tool, the description plus full schema coverage is nearly sufficient: it conveys scope, read-only safety, and output nature. Minor omissions such as zero-result behavior and pagination prevent a 5, but an agent can invoke this tool correctly from the provided text.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context for course_id via 'one Canvas course' but adds nothing about submitted_only beyond what the schema already says; it neither clarifies the default behavior nor the filtering semantics.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List my submissions for one Canvas course'), immediately distinguishing this from sibling tools like list_course_assignments (course content) and get_my_submission (single submission). The additional phrase 'returns redacted URLs' further clarifies the tool's unique output.
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 when-to-use or alternative routing is provided. The description implies it is for viewing the current user's submissions in a course, but it never says when to choose this over get_my_submission or list_course_assignments, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.