Read your own Canvas LMS user profile, including timezone and locale, to verify signed-in account identity and regional settings.
Read your own user profile including timezone and locale. 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, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the profile is 'your own' (no user identifier needed) and names the timezone/locale fields. It says nothing about return shape or whether the two params change the payload, which annotations alone don't cover.
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?
Front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence and only one follow-up clause for sibling routing. No filler, though the second sentence addresses a different tool rather than this one's behavior.
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?
A zero-required-parameter, read-only tool with complete annotation and schema coverage needs little prose, and the description covers what it is and what it returns. The only missing piece is the distinction from canvas_profile, which is the most likely point of confusion for an agent.
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 'raw' and 'page' are already fully documented, and baseline 3 applies. The description adds nothing about raw mode (UTC times, HTML) or paging, so it neither compensates nor detracts.
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: read the authenticated user's own profile, plus the notable return fields (timezone, locale). A sibling named canvas_profile exists, and the description never distinguishes canvas_user from it, leaving the one genuinely ambiguous boundary unresolved.
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?
It does route one decision explicitly, steering the agent to canvas_connector_version for connector version info, which is useful disambiguation. But there is no guidance on when to pick this over canvas_profile or canvas_settings, so usage is only partly implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.