list_group_filesList files shared in a Canvas group workspace with names, sizes, and IDs, then use the returned ID to download a specific file.
List files shared in a group workspace with names, sizes and IDs. Read-only. Save one with download_file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of items to return. Smaller is faster. | |
| group_id | Yes | Student group ID (numeric string). Get it from list_my_groups. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Input schema / properties / group_id / descriptionPrevious value: -"Canvas ID (numeric string)"New value: +"Student group ID (numeric string). Get it from list_my_groups."Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionPrevious value: -"Max items to return"New value: +"Maximum number of items to return. Smaller is faster."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 'Read-only' sentence adds nothing. The description does add value by disclosing the return fields (names, sizes, IDs), but it says nothing about pagination or ordering despite a limit parameter.
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?
Three short sentences with no waste: scope and return content first, safety hint second, next-step routing last. Everything is front-loaded.
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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, this is nearly complete. The only gap is pagination/default-limit behavior, which matters for a list endpoint but is not hinted at.
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%: group_id already points to list_my_groups and limit already explains 'smaller is faster'. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the 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 files shared in a group workspace') and even names the returned fields (names, sizes, IDs). The 'group workspace' scoping distinguishes it from list_course_files and list_my_files, though it never names those siblings explicitly.
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 line 'Save one with download_file' gives a clear next-step route for follow-up action, which is useful. However it gives no guidance on when to use this versus list_course_files, list_my_files or list_folders, so the choice between file-listing tools is left to inference from the 'group' qualifier alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.