list_upcoming_eventsLists upcoming calendar events and assignment due dates using Canvas's default window. Read-only; use list_calendar_events when you need a specific date range.
List your upcoming calendar events and assignment due dates, using Canvas's own default window. Read-only. For a specific date range, use list_calendar_events.
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so restating 'Read-only' adds nothing. The value-add is disclosing that results are bounded by Canvas's own default window rather than a caller-supplied range, but that window's size/definition is never stated, leaving a real gap in behavior for an agent that needs to know coverage.
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, zero filler, with the capability and the routing alternative both front-loaded. Nothing here could be cut without losing information.
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-arg read with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description carries what's needed to choose the tool. The one missing piece is the actual extent of the default window (e.g., days past/future), which matters for judging whether results are complete.
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?
Zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly does not waste words on inputs and instead spends them on scoping behavior.
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 (List) and resource (upcoming calendar events and assignment due dates) plus the scoping mechanism (Canvas's default window). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling list_calendar_events, so an agent can pick between the two without opening a schema.
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?
Gives both the when-to-use condition (rely on Canvas's default window) and the explicit alternative with the condition that selects it ('For a specific date range, use list_calendar_events'). This is exactly the routing guidance that prevents misselection among overlapping calendar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.