get_communication_channelsList your Canvas notification channels (email, SMS, push) with their IDs and status, then use a channel ID to check notification preferences.
List the notification channels on your account (email addresses, SMS numbers, push) with their IDs and status. Read-only. Use a channel_id from here with get_notification_preferences.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what is listed and that IDs/status are returned, but its 'Read-only' statement largely repeats the annotation and it does not discuss auth requirements, rate limits, or pagination.
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 with no waste. The core listing purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by the useful cross-tool dependency.
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?
Given zero parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description provides what an agent needs: what will be listed, which fields matter, and how to use the resulting channel_id with get_notification_preferences.
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?
This tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics beyond confirming that it takes no arguments and that channel_id values from its output feed another tool.
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 verb ('List') and resource ('notification channels on your account'), then names the channel types (email addresses, SMS numbers, push) and returned fields (IDs, status). It clearly distinguishes this discovery/list tool from the related get_notification_preferences sibling.
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 explicitly tells the agent how this tool connects to get_notification_preferences by saying to use a channel_id from here with that tool. This gives clear workflow context, though it does not spell out exclusions or say whether this should always be called before that sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.