Skip to main content
Glama
Fireiscoolsolo

Canvas LMS MCP – Remote Edition

by Fireiscoolsolo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Reply To Conversation

reply_to_conversation
Destructive

Reply to an existing Canvas Inbox conversation so every participant receives the message; preview first, then confirm to send.

Instructions

Reply within an existing Canvas Inbox conversation. Every participant receives it. Use send_message to start a new thread. [IRREVERSIBLE: call without confirm=true first to preview, then re-call with confirm=true.]

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYesMessage body text. Plain text or simple HTML.
confirmNoMust be true to actually execute. Omit or set false to get a dry-run preview first.
conversation_idYesInbox conversation ID (numeric string). Get it from list_conversations.
included_message_idsNoOptional IDs of earlier messages in the thread to quote in this reply, from get_conversation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.1.3
    • addedInput schema / properties / body / description
      Added value: +"Message body text. Plain text or simple HTML."
    • changedInput schema / properties / conversation_id / description
      Previous value: -"Canvas ID (numeric string)"New value: +"Inbox conversation ID (numeric string). Get it from list_conversations."
    • addedInput schema / properties / included_message_ids / description
      Added value: +"Optional IDs of earlier messages in the thread to quote in this reply, from get_conversation."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description reinforces this with a concrete two-step protocol: dry-run first, then re-call with confirm=true. It also discloses the broadcast side effect (every participant receives it), which is not derivable from annotations or schema.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three short sentences plus a bracketed safety callout, all front-loaded: what it does, who sees it, which sibling to use instead, then the irreversible-call protocol. Zero filler and the highest-risk information is visually separated.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a 4-parameter, non-idempotent write tool with no output schema, everything an agent needs is present: recipient scope, the sibling alternative, and the exact confirm handshake. Nothing material is left unstated.

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 conversation_id, body, confirm, and included_message_ids are already documented in the schema, including the source tools for IDs. The description repeats the confirm semantics without adding format or constraint detail beyond it; baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb (reply) and resource (an existing Canvas Inbox conversation), plus scope ('every participant receives it'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from send_message, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Names the alternative (send_message) and the condition that selects it (starting a new thread), and gives an explicit call-sequence rule for the irreversible path. It stops short of covering edge cases like archived or read-only conversations, but the primary routing decision is unambiguous.

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