check_token_expiryChecks when your Canvas access token expires and warns if expiration is near, so you can renew it before the term starts.
Check when your Canvas access token expires and warn if it is close. Read-only. Canvas often forces student tokens to expire after 30–120 days without warning, so run this at the start of a term.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' in the description is redundant. But the description adds real context beyond the annotations: Canvas silently expires student tokens after 30–120 days. It leaves the warn threshold and response shape unspecified, which keeps it at 4.
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 sentences, zero waste: purpose and safety hint first, then the motivating context. The rationale is front-loaded behind the strongest fact.
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 zero-parameter diagnostic with no output schema, the description should hint at what comes back; 'warn if it is close' implies a warning/expiry signal but doesn't say what the response contains (days remaining, threshold). Otherwise it is complete and installable with confidence.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty at 100% coverage, so there is nothing to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description neither promises nor misleads about inputs.
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 ('Check when your Canvas access token expires') plus the added behavior ('warn if it is close'). No sibling tool in the list covers token lifetime, so an agent can route to it unambiguously.
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 concrete triggering condition — 'run this at the start of a term' — which is enough for an agent to decide when it fires. It doesn't name alternatives or say when not to call it (e.g., don't poll it every turn), so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.