Skip to main content
Glama
Fireiscoolsolo

Canvas LMS MCP – Remote Edition

by Fireiscoolsolo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Submit Peer Review

submit_peer_review
Destructive

Submit a classmate's peer review with comments and optional rubric scores. Preview first, then confirm to make it visible to the classmate and instructor.

Instructions

Submit your peer review of a classmate's work: a comment and, optionally, rubric scores. The classmate and instructor can see it. Get student_id from list_my_peer_reviews. [IRREVERSIBLE: call without confirm=true first to preview, then re-call with confirm=true.]

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
commentYesYour review comment. The classmate and your instructor can see it.
confirmNoMust be true to actually execute. Omit or set false to get a dry-run preview first.
course_idYesCanvas course ID, a numeric string such as "12345". Get it from list_courses.
student_idYesThe student whose work you are reviewing
assignment_idYesAssignment ID (numeric string). Get it from list_assignments or list_upcoming_assignments.
rubric_assessmentNoOptional rubric scores keyed by criterion ID, e.g. {"_1234": {"points": 4, "comments": "Clear thesis"}}. Get criterion IDs from get_rubric.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv1.1.3
    • changedInput schema / properties / assignment_id / description
      Previous value: -"Canvas ID (numeric string)"New value: +"Assignment ID (numeric string). Get it from list_assignments or list_upcoming_assignments."
    • addedInput schema / properties / comment / description
      Added value: +"Your review comment. The classmate and your instructor can see it."
    • 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."
    • addedInput schema / properties / rubric_assessment / description
      Added value: +"Optional rubric scores keyed by criterion ID, e.g. {\"_1234\": {\"points\": 4, \"comments\": \"Clear thesis\"}}. Get criterion IDs from get_rubric."
  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 declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description goes further by naming the audience (classmate and instructor can see it) and spelling out the irreversible preview-then-confirm workflow. That is the exact operational context an agent needs before triggering a non-idempotent write.

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, front-loaded with purpose, then visibility, then the safety protocol in brackets. Nothing is redundant with the schema and no sentence could be removed without losing meaning.

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 prerequisites, audience, and the confirm gate. The one gap is what happens on a second confirmed submission (does it overwrite or error?), which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds provenance for student_id (from list_my_peer_reviews) that the schema itself does not state, and flags rubric_assessment as optional. It does not explain the rubric criterion-ID keying, though the schema does.

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 (submit) and resource (peer review) and enumerates what is submitted: a comment plus optional rubric scores. It is trivially distinguishable from the read-only sibling list_my_peer_reviews, which is named as the source of the student_id.

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 the prerequisite chain (get student_id from list_my_peer_reviews) and an explicit execution protocol: call without confirm=true first to preview, then re-call with confirm=true. It does not state edge cases such as resubmitting or editing an existing review, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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