list_rubricsLists rubrics in a Canvas course, returning titles, point totals and IDs for quick reference; use the rubric ID to read one in full.
List the rubrics in a course with titles, point totals and IDs. Read-only. Read one in full with get_rubric.
| 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 description's "Read-only" line is redundant rather than additive. It does contribute the shape of the result (titles, point totals, IDs), but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or behavior when a course has no rubrics.
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, front-loaded with the core action and result fields, followed by the disambiguation hint. Nothing superfluous.
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 output schema, the description usefully enumerates the key returned fields, which is the main thing an agent needs. Only pagination/result-size expectations are absent, a small gap for a one-parameter list tool.
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% and the single course_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including where to get it (list_courses). The description only implies the course scoping without adding format or sourcing detail, so baseline 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?
Specific verb (list) plus resource (rubrics) scoped to a course, and it names the exact fields returned (titles, point totals, IDs). It explicitly contrasts with the sibling get_rubric, so an agent can pick between them without opening a schema.
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?
It states the listing use case and routes the agent to get_rubric when a full single-rubric read is needed. There are no exclusions or prerequisites, but for a single-course listing tool that omission is minor.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.