create_module
Create an unpublished module in a Canvas course to structure content without visible student access.
Instructions
Create a module, unpublished.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| course | Yes |
Create an unpublished module in a Canvas course to structure content without visible student access.
Create a module, unpublished.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| course | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only notes 'unpublished', but does not specify side effects, required permissions, return values, or whether the operation is reversible. The word 'Create' implies mutation, but no further detail is given.
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?
The description is extremely concise, using only four words to convey the core purpose. It is front-loaded and free of fluff, though it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.
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?
Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is inadequate for a complete understanding. It fails to provide usage context, behavioral details, or parameter semantics, leaving significant gaps for the 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 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining the parameters. 'Name' and 'Course' are self-explanatory from their titles, but no additional meaning or format is provided, leaving the description to add no value beyond the schema.
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 clearly states the action ('Create a module') and adds the state 'unpublished', providing a specific verb+resource. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like add_module_item or list_modules, but the create intent is obvious.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, contextual triggers, or exclusions, relying solely on the tool name for implied usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Canvas-LMS-MCP/canvas-teacher-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server