Retrieve the Canvas groups you marked as favorites, with optional pagination and raw JSON output, so you can review or reference them.
List the groups you starred as favorites in Canvas.
| 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 fully covered without the description. The description adds no behavior of its own: it says nothing about pagination, result ordering, what a group object contains, or whether an empty list is possible when nothing is starred.
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 short sentence with the verb and qualifier front-loaded and no redundant wording. There is nothing to trim.
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 zero-required-parameter list tool this is borderline adequate, but with no output schema the description never indicates what a favorited group record looks like or how paging should be followed. The essentials for calling it are present, the essentials for interpreting results are not.
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% and both optional parameters ('raw' and 'page') carry their own explanations, including the bookmark-style next_page pattern. The description contributes nothing beyond the schema, which is acceptable at this coverage level but earns only the baseline.
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 names a concrete verb and resource ('List the groups') plus a qualifier ('starred as favorites'), so the agent knows exactly what collection is returned. It only implicitly separates itself from siblings such as canvas_favorites and canvas_groups by narrowing to favorited groups, rather than naming the alternative tools outright.
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?
There is no guidance on when to choose this over the sibling canvas_favorites or canvas_groups, nor any note on prerequisites such as being enrolled or needing a user context. The agent must infer the selection rule from the word 'favorites' alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.