dismiss_global_announcementClose a school-wide Canvas announcement for your account so it stops appearing on your dashboard; only your view is affected.
Close a school-wide announcement so it stops showing on your Canvas dashboard. Only affects you.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account_id | No | account_id from list_global_announcements. Default "self". | |
| notification_id | Yes | Announcement ID from list_global_announcements. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered; the description adds the important nuance that the change is personal-only and removes the item from the dashboard. It does not say whether the dismissal can be undone or how the action is confirmed, which keeps 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 short sentences, zero filler, with the primary effect front-loaded and the scope caveat immediately after. Nothing redundant.
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, non-destructive, idempotent mutation with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers purpose, effect, and scope. Only the reversibility/confirmation behavior is missing, a minor gap given the simple surface.
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% and both parameters are documented in the schema, including the 'self' default and the source of notification_id. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the 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?
States a specific verb (close/dismiss) and resource (a school-wide/global announcement) plus the observable effect ('stops showing on your Canvas dashboard'), which lets an agent tell it apart from read-state tools like mark_announcement_read. It stops short of naming a sibling or clarifying the boundary with list_global_announcements, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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?
'Only affects you' implies per-user scope and hence when this is appropriate versus an admin-wide action, but there is no explicit 'use this when… / use X instead' guidance. With dozens of announcement and notification siblings, an explicit alternative would materially help selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.