List your Canvas course nicknames to match informal names like “Calc” to the correct course, making it clear which course a nickname refers to.
List the nicknames you gave courses in Canvas, so you can match a name like "Calc" to its course.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| raw | No | true: Canvas's unmodified JSON (UTC times, HTML). | |
| page | No | Page to fetch: a number, or the next_page value returned by the previous call. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — nothing about pagination behavior, whether nicknames are user-scoped, or what happens when no nickname exists.
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?
A single tight sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then immediately justifies it with the concrete 'Calc' example. No filler or redundant restatement of the name.
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, annotation-covered read-only list tool with a fully documented two-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose and motivation adequately. Only a note on how results relate to canvas_courses and whether the list is paginated would improve it.
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 coverage is 100% with only two optional parameters (raw, page), both fully documented in the schema including the pattern and next_page semantics. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 and resource: listing the nicknames the user assigned to Canvas courses. It is distinguishable from canvas_courses by the nickname focus, though it never names that sibling 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 clause 'so you can match a name like "Calc" to its course' implies the use case (resolving an informal name to a course), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or pointer to canvas_courses for canonical course data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.