test_connectionVerify Canvas token, school URL, identity, courses, planner, inbox, and missing submissions end to end; reports disabled features. Run read-only first when something fails.
Check the token, school URL and access end to end: identity, courses, planner, inbox and missing submissions, and report any features your school disabled. Read-only. Run this first if anything fails.
| 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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context: it checks multiple subsystems end to end and reports disabled features, going beyond what the annotations state.
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?
The description is compact and front-loaded: the main check is stated first, followed by the read-only property and the troubleshooting instruction. Every sentence contributes.
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 zero-parameter diagnostic with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is checked, that it is read-only, and when to run it. It could mention more about the report shape, but the essential invocation context is present.
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 has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. This matches the baseline for a parameterless tool; nothing in the description misleads about inputs.
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?
The description uses a specific diagnostic verb and states the end-to-end resource scope: identity, courses, planner, inbox, missing submissions, and disabled school features. This makes it distinguishable from narrow siblings like check_token_expiry or whoami.
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 gives a clear triggering condition: 'Run this first if anything fails.' That is strong troubleshooting guidance, though it does not explicitly compare itself to sibling diagnostics such as check_token_expiry or course_health_check.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.