Read your personal Canvas account settings without changing them, with optional raw JSON and pagination for configuration review.
Read your personal Canvas settings without changing them. For this connector's own version use canvas_connector_version.
| 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 and destructiveHint=false, so 'without changing them' largely restates what the structured data provides. It adds no pagination behavior, no indication of what settings are returned, and no auth or rate-limit context beyond the schema's own page/raw fields.
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 with the purpose front-loaded and the sibling routing immediately after. No filler or repetition that could be cut.
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 read tool with rich annotations and a fully documented schema, the definition is nearly complete. The remaining gap is that with no output schema, an agent gets no sense of what the returned settings contain, which the description could have sketched briefly.
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 both parameters (raw and page) are already documented with formats and semantics in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about when to use raw output or how paging interacts with settings, so baseline 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 ('Read') and resource ('your personal Canvas settings') with explicit scope ('personal', 'without changing them'), and names the sibling canvas_connector_version as the tool for a different need. An agent can distinguish this from the connector-version tool without opening either schema.
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?
Gives a clear routing rule: use this for personal Canvas settings, use canvas_connector_version for the connector's own version. It lacks explicit when-not guidance beyond that one alternative, but the read-only framing implies the intended context well.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.