get_grading_standardRetrieve the specific letter-grade scale for a course. Enter the Canvas course ID to see the percentage requirements needed for grades like A- and B+.
Get the letter-grade scale for a course, i.e. the percentage needed for each letter such as A- or B+. 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the trailing "Read-only" merely repeats the annotation and adds no value. The description discloses nothing further, such as what happens when a course has no grading standard configured.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and an illustrative example. The redundant "Read-only" sentence is the only wasted element.
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 conveys what is returned (letter grades mapped to percentages) adequately. Missing edge-case behavior (no standard set, ungraded courses) is a minor gap.
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 coverage is 100% with a single course_id parameter fully documented in the schema, including how to obtain it via list_courses. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 (get) and resource (letter-grade scale) with a concrete illustrative example (percentage needed for A- or B+), which makes the return value's shape clear. It does not explicitly distinguish from grading-adjacent siblings like get_course_grade_breakdown or get_score_statistics, but the resource is distinctive enough.
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?
Usage is only implied by saying the scale is for a course. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over grade-related siblings, nor any prerequisite or exclusion noted.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.