list_collaborationsRetrieve collaborative course documents tied to Google Docs or Microsoft 365, returning each title and link. Use it to find shared files for a Canvas course by ID.
List collaborative documents in a course (Google Docs or Microsoft 365 integrations) with titles and links. 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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the "Read-only" sentence mostly restates structured data rather than adding value. What it does add is behavioral context beyond the annotations: the return payload shape (titles and links) and the fact that it spans external integrations, which warns of possible open-world latency/authorization. It says nothing about empty results or pagination, so it is middling rather than rich.
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 compact sentences with the resource and scope front-loaded, no filler about the tool's importance. The trailing "Read-only." fragment duplicates the annotations rather than earning its place, which is the only reason this isn't a 5.
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-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (titles and links) and the integration scope, which is enough to invoke it correctly. Minor omissions such as volume/pagination expectations for courses with many collaborations keep it below 5.
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?
Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100% – the schema itself explains that course_id is a numeric string and where to obtain it. The description adds no additional semantics (no format examples, no fallback behavior), so the schema baseline of 3 applies.
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 collaborative documents in a course") and scopes it with the concrete integrations covered (Google Docs or Microsoft 365). It is distinguishable from siblings such as list_content_shares and list_group_files because it names the collaboration-document resource explicitly, though it doesn't call out which neighbor to prefer if any overlap exists.
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: the "in a course" phrasing and the required course_id make clear it is a per-course lookup, and the schema points at list_courses for the ID. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus alternatives, nor any exclusion, so it stays at implied-usage level.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.