get_grade_trendTrack whether your grade is rising or falling by listing graded assignments in date order with a running average for a Canvas course.
List graded assignments in a course in date order with a running average, so you can see whether your grade is rising or falling. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| course_id | Yes | Canvas course ID, a numeric string such as "12345". Get it from list_courses. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Input schema / properties / course_id / descriptionPrevious value: -"Canvas course ID"New value: +"Canvas course ID, a numeric string such as \"12345\". Get it from list_courses."v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so the trailing 'Read-only' is redundant. The description does add real behavioral value by disclosing the output shape (ordered list with a computed running average), which no output schema provides, but it says nothing about scoping, pagination, or what counts as 'graded'.
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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the payoff ('rising or falling') immediately after. Nothing extraneous; the final 'Read-only' is the only marginal line.
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 single-parameter read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and return shape adequately. It could clarify whether ungraded submissions are excluded or how many entries are returned, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.
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% and the schema even explains how to obtain the course_id via list_courses. The description adds no parameter detail beyond that, so the schema carries the full load — baseline 3.
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 (list graded assignments in a course) plus the distinctive transformation applied (date order with a running average). The 'rising or falling' framing makes it clearly differ from sibling grade tools like get_all_grades or get_course_grade_breakdown.
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?
The phrase 'so you can see whether your grade is rising or falling' implies the use case for trend analysis, but it never names when to pick this over the many sibling grade tools (get_course_grade_breakdown, get_all_grades, what_if_grade). Usage is inferred, not directed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.