Skip to main content
Glama
Fireiscoolsolo

Canvas LMS MCP – Remote Edition

by Fireiscoolsolo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Edit My Entry

edit_my_entry
Destructive

Update your own discussion entry text when the course permits editing; preview the change first, then confirm to publish it to the class.

Instructions

Replace the text of one of your own discussion entries, if the course allows editing. The new text is visible to the whole class. [IRREVERSIBLE: call without confirm=true first to preview, then re-call with confirm=true.]

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
confirmNoMust be true to actually execute. Omit or set false to get a dry-run preview first.
messageYesMessage text. Plain text or simple HTML.
entry_idYesDiscussion entry ID (numeric string). Get it from get_full_topic_view or list_entries.
topic_idYesDiscussion topic ID (numeric string). Get it from list_topics.
course_idYesCanvas course ID, a numeric string such as "12345". Get it from list_courses.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv1.1.3
    • changedInput schema / properties / course_id / description
      Previous value: -"Canvas course ID"New value: +"Canvas course ID, a numeric string such as \"12345\". Get it from list_courses."
    • changedInput schema / properties / entry_id / description
      Previous value: -"Canvas ID (numeric string)"New value: +"Discussion entry ID (numeric string). Get it from get_full_topic_view or list_entries."
    • addedInput schema / properties / message / description
      Added value: +"Message text. Plain text or simple HTML."
    • changedInput schema / properties / topic_id / description
      Previous value: -"Canvas ID (numeric string)"New value: +"Discussion topic ID (numeric string). Get it from list_topics."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes further by spelling out the concrete side effect (new text is visible to the whole class) and prescribing a preview-then-confirm two-step workflow. That is real added context beyond the structured fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences plus a bracketed workflow note, all front-loaded with the verb and scope before the risk warning. Slight redundancy between the bracketed confirm instruction and the schema's confirm description, but nothing is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers scope, side effect, precondition, and the dry-run/confirm protocol, and the annotations carry the destructiveness signal. Return behavior is not described, though the tool returns nothing meaningful an agent needs.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter including confirm already carries a precise description. The description reinforces 'replace the text' semantics and the confirm protocol but adds no format or constraint detail the schema lacks, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description gives a specific verb ('Replace the text') and a precisely scoped resource ('one of your own discussion entries'), which distinguishes it from post_entry or reply_to_entry by implication. It does not name the sibling delete_my_entry or other alternatives explicitly, keeping it just short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The clause 'if the course allows editing' gives one usage precondition, but the description never states when to prefer editing over deleting and reposting, nor names any alternative tool. Usage is implied rather than routed.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools