Skip to main content
Glama
Fireiscoolsolo

Canvas LMS MCP – Remote Edition

by Fireiscoolsolo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Reply To Entry

reply_to_entry
Destructive

Posts a reply to a Canvas LMS discussion entry visible to the whole class; preview with a dry-run, then confirm to execute the irreversible submission.

Instructions

Reply to one discussion entry. Visible to the whole class. Use post_entry for a new top-level post. [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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and non-idempotency, but the description adds the critical operating procedure that annotations cannot express: call without confirm=true for a dry-run preview, then re-call with confirm=true. It also discloses the public visibility of the resulting content, which is a real consequence the agent must factor in before acting.

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, each earning its place: purpose, audience, alternative, and the irreversible-confirm protocol. The highest-stakes information (the irreversible gating) is bracketed and unmissable.

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, non-idempotent write with no output schema, the description covers the risky workflow and the visibility of the effect, which is what matters most. It does not say what the dry-run preview returns or whether replying triggers notifications, leaving a minor gap for a mutation tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description exceeds it by explaining the two-phase semantics of the confirm flag rather than just restating it. The remaining parameters (course_id, topic_id, entry_id, message) are fully documented in the schema, and the description correctly leaves them there.

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 and resource ('Reply to one discussion entry') and immediately distinguishes it from the sibling post_entry ('Use post_entry for a new top-level post'). An agent can tell reply-to-existing-entry apart from new-thread creation 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?

Gives explicit routing guidance away from post_entry and states the audience ('Visible to the whole class'), which is exactly the context an agent needs before writing a public message. It stops short of naming reply_to_conversation as the private-messaging alternative, so the discussion-vs-conversation boundary is left implicit.

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