List a student's Canvas courses, defaulting to current enrollments and optionally including past courses, so AI assistants can retrieve LMS context for read-only tasks.
List the user's Canvas courses (current ones, unless include_past).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include_past | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavioral trait – default filtering to current courses – which is real value beyond the schema. It omits auth prerequisites (canvas_login), pagination/rate-limit behavior, and does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the resource and the default behavior. Every clause earns its place with no filler.
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 simple read-only list tool with an output schema, the description plus schema is nearly sufficient – return values need not be described. The remaining gap is the missing authentication prerequisite and any note on result scoping, which would help an agent in a session that has not yet logged in.
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 0% for the single include_past parameter, so the description must compensate. It does: 'current ones, unless include_past' explains exactly what the flag toggles, which the bare boolean title does not.
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?
Specific verb and resource: 'List the user's Canvas courses.' An agent immediately knows what it returns. It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as canvas_browse or canvas_deadlines, so it stops short of a 5.
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 parenthetical clarifies the default scope (current courses unless include_past), which is implied usage guidance for choosing the flag. However, it names no alternative tool and states no when-not-to-use condition, so it is adequate but thin.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.