list_content_sharesList assignments, pages, and quizzes that other Canvas users shared with you, including sender and share date. Read-only; returns an empty list when nothing was shared.
List course content (assignments, pages, quizzes) that other Canvas users shared directly with you, with sender and share date. Read-only. Returns an empty list if nothing was shared.
| 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 readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description reinforces 'Read-only' and adds a genuinely useful edge case ('Returns an empty list if nothing was shared') plus the returned fields. No pagination or permission notes, keeping it below a 5.
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 tight sentences: the resource and scope come first, the empty-list behavior closes it. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.
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?
With no input parameters and no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does name the key fields (sender, share date) and the empty case. It doesn't mention ordering, volume, or pagination, which would be the last needed detail.
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, so the baseline is 4 by rule. There is nothing parameter-level for the description to clarify or omit.
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 (list) and a precisely scoped resource: course content items (assignments, pages, quizzes) shared directly with the user, plus the sender and share date. The direct-share framing distinguishes it from course-scoped listing siblings like list_assignments or list_pages.
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 'shared directly with you' scoping implies when to reach for it (a share inbox rather than course browsing), but there is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative among the many list_* siblings. Adequate implication, no routing instruction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.