Skip to main content
Glama

canvas_health_check

Monitor and verify the health and connectivity of the Canvas API to ensure reliable interaction with courses, assignments, enrollments, and grades.

Instructions

Check the health and connectivity of the Canvas API

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • Executes the canvas_health_check tool by calling the CanvasClient's healthCheck method and returning the result as formatted JSON text.
    case "canvas_health_check": {
      const health = await this.client.healthCheck();
      return {
        content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(health, null, 2) }]
      };
    }
  • Defines the tool schema including name, description, and empty input schema (no parameters required).
    {
      name: "canvas_health_check",
      description: "Check the health and connectivity of the Canvas API",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {},
        required: []
      }
    },
  • src/index.ts:1071-1074 (registration)
    Registers the list of available tools, including canvas_health_check, via the ListToolsRequestSchema handler.
    this.server.setRequestHandler(ListToolsRequestSchema, async () => ({
      tools: TOOLS
    }));
  • Core helper function in CanvasClient that performs the health check by attempting to fetch the current user's profile, returning status and basic user info on success or error status.
    async healthCheck(): Promise<{ status: 'ok' | 'error'; timestamp: string; user?: any }> {
      try {
        const user = await this.getUserProfile();
        return {
          status: 'ok',
          timestamp: new Date().toISOString(),
          user: { id: user.id, name: user.name }
        };
      } catch (error) {
        return {
          status: 'error',
          timestamp: new Date().toISOString()
        };
      }
    }
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions checking 'health and connectivity' but doesn't disclose what that entails—whether it tests authentication, API endpoints, network latency, or returns specific status codes. For a diagnostic tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves behavioral traits unclear.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple diagnostic tool with no parameters.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema) and the description's clear purpose, it's minimally adequate. However, without annotations or output schema, it lacks details on what the health check returns (e.g., status indicators, error messages), which could hinder an agent's ability to interpret results.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for not adding unnecessary information beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose as checking health and connectivity of the Canvas API, using specific verbs ('check', 'health', 'connectivity') and identifying the target resource ('Canvas API'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, which are all data operations rather than diagnostic checks.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites like authentication status, nor does it suggest scenarios (e.g., troubleshooting connectivity issues before other operations). With many sibling tools available, this lack of contextual guidance is a significant gap.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Related Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/DMontgomery40/mcp-canvas-lms'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server