get_folderRetrieves a Canvas LMS folder's full path, parent folder, and counts of contained files and subfolders; use a folder_id from listing folders. Read-only.
Get one folder's details: full path, parent folder, and how many files and subfolders it holds. Read-only. Get folder_id from list_folders.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| folder_id | Yes | Folder ID (numeric string). Get it from list_folders. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.3Input schema / properties / folder_id / descriptionPrevious value: -"Canvas ID (numeric string)"New value: +"Folder ID (numeric string). Get it from list_folders."v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so 'Read-only' merely restates structured data. The genuinely additive part is the disclosure of what is returned (path, parent, counts), but nothing is said about error behavior for a bad folder_id or any access restrictions.
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 payload description before the read-only note and the id hint. Slight redundancy in 'Read-only' given the annotations, but no real padding.
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?
A single-parameter read tool with rich annotations and no output schema; the description covers what comes back and where to get the ID, which is enough to call it correctly. Only failure modes and sibling routing are left unstated.
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 the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description repeats the same 'get it from list_folders' hint without adding format, validation, or edge-case 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get one folder's details') and enumerates the returned fields (full path, parent, file/subfolder counts), which separates it from get_folder_tree and list_course_files. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.
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?
The sentence 'Get folder_id from list_folders' gives a useful prerequisite chain and implies list_folders is the entry point. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance or mention of get_folder_tree / list_course_files as alternatives for browsing folder contents.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.