Canvas MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes targeting specific Canvas resources (e.g., assignments, discussions, files), but some overlap exists. For instance, canvas_assignment_list and canvas_planner_items both help track upcoming assignments, and canvas_missing_submissions overlaps with assignment filtering. The NotebookLM tools are clearly separate but unrelated to Canvas, creating a minor domain split.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names follow a highly consistent snake_case pattern with clear verb_noun structure (e.g., canvas_assignment_get, canvas_discussion_list). The Canvas tools all start with 'canvas_' and the NotebookLM tools with 'notebooklm_', maintaining perfect internal consistency within each domain subset.
Tool Count2/5
With 45 tools, the count is excessive for a single server. While Canvas is a complex platform, many tools could be consolidated (e.g., multiple assignment-related tools) or parameterized. The inclusion of unrelated NotebookLM authentication tools further bloats the count without clear integration.
Completeness4/5
The Canvas tools provide comprehensive coverage for student workflows, including assignments, discussions, files, grades, and modules. However, there are gaps in write operations (e.g., no tools to submit assignments, post to discussions, or upload files) and instructor-specific actions. The NotebookLM tools are minimal but functional for their limited scope.
Average 3.5/5 across 45 of 45 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
This server has been verified by its author.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns detailed assignment information, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether it's a read-only operation. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by a bulleted list of return details. There's minimal waste, though the bulleted list could be slightly more concise if integrated into the flow.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description partially compensates by listing return values. However, for a tool with 3 parameters and no behavioral annotations, it lacks completeness in areas like error handling, authentication, and distinguishing from siblings. It's adequate but has clear gaps.
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 the schema already documents all three parameters (course_id, assignment_id, include_rubric). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter relationships or usage nuances. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get detailed information about a specific assignment.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('assignment'), but doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'canvas_assignment_list' or 'canvas_get_my_submission', which likely serve different but related purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'canvas_assignment_list' (for listing assignments) or 'canvas_get_my_submission' (for submission details), leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action is destructive ('Delete', 'Remove'), implying mutation, but lacks details on permissions, reversibility, error handling, or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool without annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the core action, using two concise sentences. However, the second sentence ('Remove a bookmark from your list.') is somewhat redundant with the first, slightly reducing efficiency without adding new information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's destructive nature (implied by 'Delete'), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It should address behavioral aspects like permissions or consequences, and provide more context for safe usage, especially compared to sibling tools.
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%, with the parameter 'bookmark_id' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond what's in the schema (e.g., how to obtain the ID), so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete', 'Remove') and resource ('bookmark'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like canvas_bookmark_create or canvas_bookmark_list, which would require mentioning it's specifically for deletion rather than creation or listing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing bookmark ID), exclusions, or refer to sibling tools like canvas_bookmark_list for obtaining IDs, leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it describes what information is returned, it doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether the download URL requires additional authentication. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and return values. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose first, followed by specific return details. There's minimal waste, though the 'Returns:' section could be slightly more integrated into the flow.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what information is returned. However, without annotations and with sibling tools that could cause confusion, it should ideally mention this is a metadata-only operation to distinguish from file download/list tools. The absence of behavioral context (auth, errors, etc.) prevents a higher score.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100% with the single parameter 'file_id' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation when the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a specific file'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'canvas_file_download' or 'canvas_file_list', which would require mentioning this is for metadata retrieval rather than downloading or listing files.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'canvas_file_download' and 'canvas_file_list' available, the agent receives no explicit or implied direction about when this metadata retrieval tool is appropriate versus those other file-related operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'Returns files matching the search term,' which gives basic output information, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or whether it's read-only or mutative. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by two supporting sentences. There is no wasted text, and it efficiently communicates key points. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from usage guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (search operation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and output intent but lacks behavioral details, error handling, and differentiation from siblings. It meets a minimum viable level but has clear gaps in context.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear descriptions for 'course_id' and 'search_term.' The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the search is for file names, but does not provide additional semantics like case sensitivity, partial matching, or format examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search for files in a course by name.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('files'), and scope ('in a course'), which is specific and actionable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'canvas_file_list' or 'canvas_file_get', which likely list all files or retrieve a specific file, respectively.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal usage guidance: 'Useful for finding specific documents.' This implies a context for when to use it but does not specify when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'canvas_file_list' or 'canvas_file_get', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. No explicit alternatives or detailed context are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists return values (status, score, comments, etc.), which is helpful, but fails to mention critical behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first followed by a bulleted list of return values. Each sentence earns its place by providing useful information without redundancy. However, the bulleted list could be slightly more concise, and there's room to integrate usage context more efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and return values well, but lacks behavioral details (e.g., auth, errors) and usage guidelines. Without an output schema, the description compensates by listing return values, but overall it falls short of being fully comprehensive for safe and effective use.
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 the schema already documents all four parameters (course_id, assignment_id, include_rubric_assessment, include_comments). The description doesn't add any additional meaning or context beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or default behaviors. This meets the baseline score when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get your submission for a specific assignment.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('your submission'), making it distinct from sibling tools like canvas_assignment_get or canvas_quiz_submission. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from canvas_missing_submissions or other submission-related tools, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., user authentication), compare it to sibling tools like canvas_missing_submissions or canvas_quiz_submission, or specify scenarios where it's appropriate. This lack of contextual usage information leaves the agent to infer based on the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions what the tool returns (completed, in-progress, locked modules, and requirements remaining), it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, if it's a read-only operation, how data is formatted, or potential rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second bulleted list clearly outlines the return values. There's no wasted language, and the information is front-loaded with the main purpose stated first.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (progress tracking with multiple status categories) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description provides basic but incomplete context. It explains what information is returned but not the format, structure, or additional behavioral context. For a tool with no output schema, more detail about the return format would be helpful, though the bulleted list gives some indication of content.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage (course_id is clearly documented as 'The Canvas course ID'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. It doesn't explain what format the course_id should be in, where to find it, or provide any examples - it relies entirely on the schema's documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('your progress through course modules'), making it immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like canvas_module_get or canvas_module_list by focusing on progress tracking rather than module metadata or listings. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all possible alternatives, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like canvas_module_get, canvas_module_list, and canvas_module_items available, there's no indication of when progress tracking is needed versus retrieving module content or structure. The description assumes the user already knows they need progress information without explaining the context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return values (e.g., attempt number, score), which is helpful, but lacks critical details such as authentication requirements, error handling, rate limits, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise and well-structured. It starts with the core purpose, lists return values in a bulleted format for clarity, and ends with a usage tip. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and return values but lacks behavioral context (e.g., auth needs, errors) and doesn't differentiate from siblings. Without an output schema, the description helpfully lists return values, but overall it leaves gaps that could hinder effective tool use.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'course_id' and 'quiz_id'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3, as the schema already does the heavy lifting without needing extra details in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get your submission/attempt for a quiz.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('submission/attempt for a quiz'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'canvas_get_my_submission' or 'canvas_quiz_get', which could cause confusion about when to use this specific tool versus others.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance: 'Use to check your quiz results.' This implies a context but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'canvas_get_my_submission' or 'canvas_quiz_get'. No exclusions, prerequisites, or clear alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent with little direction on tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions what the tool returns (current grades, final grades, GPA help), but it doesn't cover critical behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, any rate limits, or how data is formatted (e.g., pagination, error handling). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured, using a single sentence for the core purpose and a bulleted list for returns. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without fluff. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating the return details into the initial sentence for even better clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (simple read operation with no parameters) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, but it lacks details on behavioral aspects like authentication needs or error handling. For a tool with no structured fields to rely on, this leaves some gaps in contextual understanding.
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?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's output. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters, as it avoids unnecessary repetition and adds value by explaining the return data.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get an overview of your grades across all courses.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('grades across all courses'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'canvas_get_my_submission' or 'canvas_missing_submissions' that might also relate to grades, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'canvas_get_my_submission' for individual submissions or 'canvas_missing_submissions' for incomplete work. This lack of explicit when-to-use information limits its helpfulness for an AI agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions what data is returned (titles, content, dates, course context) but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is paginated, rate limits, authentication requirements, whether it returns only active/visible announcements, or any filtering beyond the parameters. For a list operation with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with three sentences. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return details, then usage context. No redundant information, though the 'Returns' section could be more integrated. Every sentence serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and return format but lacks completeness. For a list tool with 2 parameters, it should address behavioral aspects like pagination, sorting, default behavior when start_date is omitted, and relationship to sibling tools. The return format description is helpful but insufficient for full agent understanding.
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 both parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline is 3 when schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with additional context about parameter interactions or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List announcements across courses' with specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like canvas_notification_list or canvas_todo_list by focusing specifically on announcements. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from canvas_discussion_list which might be similar.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides implied usage context: 'Use this to stay updated on course announcements' suggests monitoring purposes. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like canvas_notification_list (which might include announcements) or canvas_discussion_list. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions what information is shown (cached items count, cache keys) but doesn't describe important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance impacts, authentication requirements, or rate limits. For a diagnostic tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with three brief sentences. It's front-loaded with the core purpose first, followed by what information is shown, and ending with usage context. There's minimal waste, though the bullet-like 'Shows:' format could be slightly more polished.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (diagnostic cache tool with one parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides basic completeness but has gaps. It explains what the tool does and what information it returns, but doesn't cover behavioral aspects, error conditions, or output format details that would be helpful for a debugging tool.
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% with the single parameter 'clear' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with 'Get cache status and statistics' - a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('cache status and statistics'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on cache operations rather than Canvas LMS entities like assignments or files. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with specific cache-related alternatives since none exist among siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides implied usage guidance with 'Useful for debugging,' suggesting this tool is for diagnostic purposes. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any prerequisites or exclusions. No sibling tools appear to overlap with cache functionality, so differentiation isn't critical.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool 'Returns' specific data, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's idempotent. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by a bulleted list of return values. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information. It could be slightly improved by front-loading more critical details (e.g., authentication), but it's efficiently sized for its purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and return values, but lacks context on authentication, errors, or how it differs from siblings. Without annotations or output schema, more behavioral details would enhance completeness for a read operation.
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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('course_id' and 'include_syllabus'). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'syllabus (if requested)', which aligns with the boolean parameter. However, it does not provide additional context like parameter constraints or examples, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get detailed information about a specific course.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('course'), and lists key return fields (name, code, term, dates, syllabus, student count). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'canvas_course_list' (which likely lists multiple courses vs. getting details for one).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by specifying it's for 'a specific course' and lists return details, suggesting it's for retrieving comprehensive course data. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives (e.g., 'canvas_course_list' for summaries or other tools for specific course components). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions what is returned (discussion topic, replies, author info) but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's read-only. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap, as it doesn't fully describe operational traits beyond basic output.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose, lists returns, and ends with usage guidance. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for returns), but it's efficient and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (retrieving a discussion with replies), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and returns but misses behavioral aspects like auth needs or error cases. It's adequate for basic use but lacks depth for full agent understanding in a complex environment.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters (course_id and topic_id). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to heavily.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a specific discussion with all replies.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('a specific discussion'), and distinguishes it from the sibling 'canvas_discussion_list' by focusing on a single discussion rather than listing multiple. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other discussion-related tools beyond the sibling list, keeping it at a 4.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides implied usage guidance: 'Use this to read and understand a discussion.' This suggests it's for retrieving detailed discussion content, but it lacks explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives (e.g., compared to 'canvas_discussion_list' for summaries). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, making it adequate but not comprehensive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the return format (folder hierarchy with names/paths, file/subfolder counts), which is helpful. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions—critical gaps for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: purpose, return details, and usage hint. Minor improvement possible by merging sentences, but it's efficient with zero waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description partially compensates by detailing return values. However, for a tool with 1 parameter and no behavioral annotations, it should more fully cover operational aspects (e.g., read-only status, error handling). It's adequate but has clear gaps in context.
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% (course_id parameter is fully described in schema). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. According to rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List all folders in a course' (verb+resource). It distinguishes from siblings like canvas_file_list by specifying folders only, not general files. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other folder-related tools (none in siblings), so it's not a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for navigating file structure ('Use this to navigate the file structure'), which provides some context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like canvas_file_list or canvas_module_list for similar purposes, and no exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns profile data (name, email, settings, avatar URL), which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or data freshness. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.
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?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get your Canvas user profile'), followed by a bulleted list of return values. Every sentence earns its place—no fluff or redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what data is returned, which helps, but lacks behavioral details (e.g., auth needs) and doesn't reference sibling tools. For a read-only profile tool, it's minimally viable but not fully comprehensive.
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?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description correctly omits parameter details, focusing on the return values instead. This aligns with the baseline expectation for zero-parameter tools, earning a high score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Get your Canvas user profile' with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Canvas user profile'), distinguishing it from siblings that handle courses, assignments, files, etc. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'canvas_user_get' (which doesn't exist in the list), so it's not a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), context (e.g., for personal settings vs. other user profiles), or exclusions. This leaves the agent without usage direction beyond the basic purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what data is returned (criteria, points, ratings, comments) but doesn't cover important behavioral aspects such as authentication requirements, error handling, rate limits, or whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicitly stated). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and concise, using bullet points to list return data and a final sentence for context. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids unnecessary fluff. However, it could be slightly more efficient by integrating the 'Essential for...' part into the initial statement, but overall it's clear and to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a read operation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a good overview of what data is returned, which helps compensate for the lack of output schema. However, it doesn't fully address behavioral aspects like error cases or performance, leaving some gaps in completeness for a tool without structured annotations or output details.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('course_id' and 'rubric_id'). The description doesn't add any additional semantic information about the parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or contextual usage. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get detailed rubric with all criteria and ratings.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed rubric'), and lists the specific data returned. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'canvas_rubric_list' or 'canvas_rubric_for_assignment', which is why it doesn't reach a score of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides implied usage guidance by stating 'Essential for understanding how work will be graded,' suggesting it's used when detailed rubric information is needed. However, it lacks explicit instructions on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'canvas_rubric_list' (which might list rubrics) or 'canvas_rubric_for_assignment' (which might fetch a rubric linked to an assignment), and doesn't mention any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool returns items 'needing action' and is for 'quick view,' but lacks details on permissions (e.g., instructor vs. student access), rate limits, pagination, or error handling. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps, though it doesn't contradict anything.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with three sentences: purpose statement, return examples, and usage context. It's front-loaded with the main function and avoids redundancy. However, the second sentence could be integrated more smoothly, and there's minor wordiness ('that need attention' could be trimmed).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description provides basic purpose and usage but lacks details on return format (e.g., structure of items), error cases, or authentication needs. It's adequate for a minimal tool but incomplete for robust agent use, as behavioral transparency is weak.
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%, with one optional parameter 'course_id' documented in the schema as limiting to a specific course. The description doesn't add any parameter details beyond this, so it relies on the schema. With high coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to heavily.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get your TODO list items that need attention' with specific examples (assignments to submit, items to grade, unread discussions). It distinguishes from siblings like canvas_assignment_list or canvas_missing_submissions by focusing on a curated 'immediate attention' view, though not explicitly named. The verb 'Get' is clear but could be more precise like 'Retrieve'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context: 'for a quick view of what needs immediate attention,' suggesting it's for prioritization over comprehensive lists. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like canvas_planner_items or canvas_missing_submissions, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is helpful but not fully comparative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create a new bookmark,' implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose permissions required, rate limits, whether it's idempotent, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.
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?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a clarifying sentence and bullet points for requirements. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (simple creation with 2 parameters), 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., permissions, error handling) that are crucial for a mutation tool without annotations. It meets minimum viability but has clear gaps in context.
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%, with both parameters (name and url) well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by listing the requirements ('Name for the bookmark' and 'URL to bookmark'), which essentially repeats schema info. Baseline is 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra semantic insight is provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a new bookmark') and resource ('quick-access link to any Canvas page'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like canvas_bookmark_list (list) and canvas_bookmark_delete (delete), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives. The description is specific but could be slightly more explicit about sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by stating 'Add a quick-access link to any Canvas page,' which suggests when to use it (for bookmarking Canvas pages). However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or name alternatives like canvas_bookmark_list for viewing bookmarks. The context is clear but lacks detailed exclusions or comparative advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the return data (missing submissions, due dates, etc.) and hints at a read-only operation ('Get'), but lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency about how it behaves beyond basic output.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by a bulleted list of returns and a concluding emphasis. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating usage guidelines, but it's efficient overall.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a read operation with no parameters) and no annotations or output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and output details well, but lacks behavioral context like authentication needs or performance traits. For a tool in this context, it provides enough to understand what it does but not how it operates fully.
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?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't need to add parameter details, as there are none to document. It effectively compensates by explaining the output semantics, which is valuable given the lack of an output schema. This meets the baseline for zero parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get all missing submissions across courses' with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('missing submissions'). It distinguishes from siblings like canvas_get_my_submission (which retrieves specific submissions) and canvas_assignment_list (which lists all assignments). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with canvas_todo_list, which might overlap in functionality for tracking overdue work.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context with 'Critical for finding overdue work!' and lists what it returns, suggesting it's for identifying unsubmitted assignments. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like canvas_todo_list or canvas_planner_items, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is present but not comprehensive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns detailed module information, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it's a read-only operation, authentication requirements, error handling, or rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a bulleted list of return details. It's efficiently structured with zero wasted words, making it easy to scan and understand quickly. Every sentence earns its place by adding value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and return data well, but lacks behavioral context (e.g., safety, errors) and doesn't fully compensate for the absence of annotations. It's adequate as a minimum viable description but has clear gaps.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('course_id' and 'module_id'). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, which is appropriate here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get detailed information about a specific module.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('module'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'canvas_module_list' (which lists modules) and 'canvas_module_items' (which focuses on items only). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'canvas_module_progress' (which might overlap in some data), keeping it from a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when detailed module info is needed, as opposed to listing modules or items alone, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'canvas_module_list' or 'canvas_module_progress'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving room for ambiguity in tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool returns but doesn't describe behavioral traits such as whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or how far into the future it looks for 'upcoming' events. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: it starts with the core purpose, lists return items in bullet points, and ends with differentiation from alternatives. Every sentence earns its place, though the bullet points could be integrated more smoothly into prose. It's appropriately sized for a no-parameter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no input parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what it returns and how it differs from similar tools. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., authentication, time range, pagination) and doesn't fully address when to use it versus all relevant siblings. For a read operation with no structured fields, it's minimally viable but has clear gaps.
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?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter information is needed in the description. The description appropriately focuses on output semantics by listing what it returns (assignments, calendar events, quizzes, other scheduled items). This adds value beyond the empty input schema, earning a score above the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get upcoming calendar events' with specific examples of what it returns (assignments, calendar events, quizzes, other scheduled items). It distinguishes from sibling 'canvas_planner_items' by noting it shows a 'calendar-based view', though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling tool. The purpose is specific but could be more precise about the verb+resource combination.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides implied usage guidance by contrasting with 'planner' (likely referring to 'canvas_planner_items'), stating it shows a 'calendar-based view'. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'canvas_todo_list' or 'canvas_missing_submissions', nor does it provide exclusion criteria or prerequisites. The guidance is helpful but incomplete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what data is aggregated but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, potential rate limits, how fresh the data is, or what format the dashboard returns. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
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?
The description is well-structured and efficient. It starts with the core purpose, lists the five aggregated components in a clear bullet-like format, and ends with usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words. The formatting with dashes for the list makes it scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters (simplifying the context) but also no annotations and no output schema, the description does an adequate job explaining what the tool provides. However, for a dashboard tool that aggregates multiple data types, more information about the return format, data freshness, or authentication requirements would be helpful. It's minimally viable but has clear gaps.
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?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. It focuses instead on what the tool returns, which is appropriate for a parameterless tool. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a comprehensive dashboard view of your Canvas activity' with specific aggregated components listed (upcoming assignments, missing submissions, etc.). It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('dashboard view'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from all sibling tools like 'canvas_grades_overview' or 'canvas_todo_list' which might provide overlapping information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides implied usage guidance: 'This is the best starting point for a study session' suggests when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools. The guidance is helpful but not comprehensive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns member names, profile information, and contact details (if shared), which adds behavioral context beyond a basic list operation. However, it does not mention potential limitations like permissions required, rate limits, or error conditions, leaving gaps in transparency for a read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose ('List members of a specific group.') followed by return details and usage guidance. Each sentence adds value, with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating return values into a bulleted list in the text), but overall it is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, read-only operation) and no output schema, the description provides a basic overview of purpose and returns, which is adequate. However, it lacks details on output format (e.g., structure of returned data), error handling, or dependencies, making it incomplete for full agent understanding without additional context.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'group_id' clearly documented as 'The group ID.' The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond this, as it focuses on the tool's purpose and output. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List members of a specific group.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('members of a specific group'), making the action and target explicit. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'canvas_group_list' (which likely lists groups rather than members), so it misses full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides implied usage guidance: 'Use to see who is in your group for collaboration.' This suggests a context of group collaboration, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'canvas_group_list' for listing groups) or any exclusions. The guidance is helpful but lacks specificity about tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool returns (system-wide announcements with examples) but lacks critical behavioral details such as whether it requires authentication, how results are paginated or sorted, if there are rate limits, or what the return format looks like (e.g., JSON structure). For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and subsequent sentences provide clarifying details without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place by adding context about the type of announcements returned. There is zero waste, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (simple read operation with 0 parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is partially complete. It adequately explains what the tool does and the scope of data, but it misses behavioral aspects like authentication needs, response format, or pagination. For a tool with no structured fields to rely on, it should do more to be fully helpful to an AI agent.
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?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't mention any parameters, which is appropriate since none exist. It adds value by explaining the scope of data returned (system-wide announcements from your institution), which compensates for the lack of parameter documentation. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters as per rules.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'List account notifications/announcements' with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('account notifications/announcements'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like canvas_announcement_list by specifying it returns 'system-wide announcements from your institution' rather than course-specific announcements. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with canvas_inbox_list or canvas_todo_list, which might also involve notifications.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by stating it returns 'system-wide announcements from your institution' with examples like 'Important notices, System maintenance alerts, Policy updates.' This suggests it should be used for institutional-level notifications rather than course-specific ones. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like canvas_announcement_list for course announcements, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns group names, descriptions, member counts, and associated courses, which adds useful context about the output. However, it doesn't mention behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it's read-only (implied by 'List' but not explicit). No contradiction with annotations exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core functionality. The bullet points for returns and group uses are structured efficiently, though the 'Groups are used for' section might be slightly extraneous but adds context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, but lacks details on authentication, error handling, or pagination, which could be important for a list operation in a real-world API.
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?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate, and it compensates by explaining the return values, making it more helpful than baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all groups you are a member of'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'canvas_group_members', which might list members of a specific group rather than groups the user belongs to.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by stating 'List all groups you are a member of,' which suggests it's for retrieving personal group memberships. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'canvas_group_members' or other group-related tools, and doesn't mention any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the return values (bookmark names, target URLs, position/order), which adds useful context about output structure. However, it doesn't cover other behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling, leaving gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by brief context and a clear bulleted list of return values. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but not fully complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, but lacks details on behavioral traits like permissions or errors. For a read-only list tool, this is minimally viable but could benefit from more context to compensate for the absence of annotations.
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?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on output details. This aligns with the baseline expectation for tools without parameters, earning a high score for not adding unnecessary information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List all your Canvas bookmarks.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('Canvas bookmarks'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like canvas_bookmark_create or canvas_bookmark_delete, though the 'List' action implies read-only retrieval versus creation/deletion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by stating 'Bookmarks provide quick access to frequently used pages,' suggesting this tool is for retrieving bookmark data. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., no mention of canvas_bookmark_create for adding bookmarks or canvas_bookmark_delete for removal), leaving the context somewhat inferred rather than clearly defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a full conversation thread with messages, timestamps, attachments, and participant details, which adds useful behavioral context beyond just 'get'. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions, which are important for a read operation.
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?
The description is well-structured and concise, with a clear purpose statement followed by a bulleted list of return details. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, which is sufficient for a simple read operation. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more behavioral details like error handling or data format specifics.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'conversation_id' clearly documented. The description doesn't add any additional semantic information about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a specific conversation with all messages'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'canvas_inbox_list', which might handle listing conversations rather than retrieving a specific one, though this distinction is implied.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by specifying it retrieves 'a specific conversation', suggesting it should be used when you have a conversation ID. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'canvas_inbox_list' or other inbox-related tools, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return format (subjects, preview, participants, status), which adds useful context beyond basic listing. However, it doesn't cover aspects like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation support.
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?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded, starting with the core action, followed by return details and usage context in two concise sentences. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, returns, and basic usage, though it could improve by addressing behavioral aspects like pagination or error cases to fully compensate for the lack of annotations and output schema.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'filter' parameter fully documented via enum and description. The tool description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('Canvas inbox conversations'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like canvas_inbox_get (which likely retrieves a single conversation) by focusing on listing multiple conversations, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all related tools like canvas_notification_list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides implied usage guidance by stating 'Use to check messages from instructors and classmates,' which suggests when to use it. However, it lacks explicit alternatives (e.g., vs. canvas_inbox_get for details) or exclusions, and doesn't clarify prerequisites or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses some behavioral traits: it returns discussion titles, messages, post counts, unread counts, and pinned/locked status. However, it doesn't mention pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions, which are important for a list operation in an educational platform context.
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?
The description is well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with the core purpose, lists return values in bullet points, and provides usage guidelines in a separate section. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (list operation with filtering), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides basic completeness. It covers what the tool does and what it returns, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like pagination, error handling, or authentication requirements that would be helpful for an AI agent.
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 the schema already documents both parameters (course_id and only_unread). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the format of course_id or the implications of the only_unread filter. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List all discussion topics in a course.' It specifies the resource (discussion topics) and verb (list), and distinguishes it from siblings like canvas_discussion_get by indicating it returns multiple items. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like canvas_announcement_list beyond the resource type.
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?
The 'Use this to:' section provides clear context for when to use this tool: to find discussions to participate in, see what's being discussed, or check for unread posts. This gives practical guidance, though it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool returns (file metadata) and some use cases, but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. The description adds value by specifying the return format, but leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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?
The description is well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with the core purpose, then lists return values in bullet points, and finishes with specific use cases. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information. The bullet points make it scannable and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 2 parameters with 100% schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, but doesn't cover behavioral aspects like pagination, error handling, or authentication needs. For a list operation with no annotations, more behavioral transparency would be helpful.
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 the schema already fully documents both parameters (course_id and sort_by with enum values). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List all files in a course' specifies the verb (list) and resource (files in a course). It distinguishes from some siblings like canvas_file_download (downloads) and canvas_file_search (searches), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from canvas_file_get (gets single file) or canvas_folder_list (lists folders). The purpose is clear but sibling differentiation could be more explicit.
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?
The 'Use this to:' section provides clear context for when to use the tool: browsing course materials, finding documents to download, and getting file IDs for other operations. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives (like canvas_file_search for filtered searches), but the guidance is practical and helpful for an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (detailed information with specific fields like type, title, completion requirements), which is valuable behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like pagination, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving gaps for a read operation.
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?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a bulleted list of return details that efficiently elaborates without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is clear and well-organized.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It clearly states the purpose and return format, but lacks information on error handling, pagination, or authentication, which could be useful for a list operation in an educational context.
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 the schema already documents both parameters ('course_id' and 'module_id'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying these IDs are needed to specify the module. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.
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?
The description clearly states the specific action ('List all items') and resource ('within a specific module'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'canvas_module_get' (single module) and 'canvas_module_list' (all modules). It provides precise scope by specifying 'all items' within a module.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when needing items in a module, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'canvas_assignment_list' or 'canvas_quiz_list' for specific item types. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, though the required parameters suggest it's for module-level queries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully describes key behavioral traits: the authentication requirement (browser cookies), the limitation with API tokens, and the return structure (status, file data, error message). This covers important operational constraints that aren't in the schema. No contradictions exist since there are no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with the core purpose, then provides critical operational notes, and finally outlines the return structure. Each sentence earns its place by adding valuable information. It could be slightly more front-loaded by moving the NOTE to the end, but overall it's efficient.
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?
Given the complexity (download operation with authentication constraints), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job of providing necessary context. It explains the authentication requirement, the API token limitation, and the return structure. For a tool with 2 parameters and 100% schema coverage, this is reasonably complete, though it could benefit from more detail about error conditions or file size limitations.
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 the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain the relationship between file_url and file_id, or provide guidance on which to use when. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Download') and resource ('a file from Canvas'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like canvas_file_get (which retrieves metadata) and canvas_file_list (which lists files) by specifying the download action. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these specific siblings.
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?
The description provides clear context about when to use this tool through the NOTE section, which explains the authentication requirement (browser cookies needed, API tokens blocked). This gives important prerequisites for successful usage. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternative tools for related operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool is for a 'quick check' (implying efficiency), it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the return value looks like (just a count or structured data).
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?
The description is perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core purpose, the second provides valuable context about the lightweight nature of the operation. No wasted words, front-loaded with essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic purpose and usage context. However, without annotations, it should ideally address more behavioral aspects like authentication needs or return format. The description is complete enough for basic understanding but leaves gaps in operational details.
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?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist to document.
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?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Get count') and resource ('unread messages'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like canvas_inbox_get and canvas_inbox_list which retrieve full message content or lists. It precisely communicates the tool's function without ambiguity.
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?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Quick check for new messages without loading full inbox'), implying it's for lightweight status checks. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives like canvas_inbox_list for detailed message retrieval.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the action ('Get', 'retrieves') but lacks details on behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or response format. The description doesn't contradict annotations, but it's minimal in behavioral disclosure.
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?
The description is front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence, followed by clarifying details. Both sentences earn their place by explaining functionality and convenience, with zero wasted words, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete enough for basic understanding but lacks depth. It covers what the tool does and why to use it, but doesn't address behavioral aspects or output details, leaving gaps for an agent to infer.
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 the schema already documents both parameters (course_id and assignment_id) adequately. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying these IDs are needed, which is redundant. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get', 'retrieves') and resources ('rubric attached to a specific assignment', 'grading criteria for an assignment'). It distinguishes from siblings like canvas_rubric_get and canvas_rubric_list by specifying it's for an assignment's rubric, not a general rubric lookup.
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?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Directly retrieves the grading criteria for an assignment') and mentions an alternative ('More convenient than finding rubric ID separately'), which implies it's preferable to manual methods. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or compare directly to sibling tools like canvas_rubric_get.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively explains the filtering behavior with detailed bucket definitions (e.g., 'overdue: Past due, not submitted'), which adds value beyond the input schema. However, it lacks information on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or response format, leaving gaps in behavioral context for a tool with no output 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?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose followed by bullet points for filters and usage guidelines. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying functionality without unnecessary repetition or fluff, making it efficient and easy to scan.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, filtering behavior, and usage contexts well. However, it lacks details on response structure, error handling, or authentication needs, which would be beneficial for a tool with no output schema and no annotations.
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 the input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by listing bucket filter options, but this is largely redundant with the schema's enum descriptions. It does not provide additional syntax, format details, or examples beyond what the schema specifies, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'List assignments in a course with optional filtering,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like canvas_assignment_get (detailed view) and canvas_missing_submissions (specific filter) by emphasizing listing with various bucket filters rather than retrieving individual assignments or focusing only on missing submissions.
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?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Use this to: - See upcoming deadlines - Find overdue assignments - Get assignment IDs for detailed views'), which helps differentiate it from alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific sibling tools as alternatives, such as canvas_assignment_get for detailed views or canvas_missing_submissions for a narrower filter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior by listing what modules contain and the inclusion of completion status, which adds context beyond basic listing. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error handling, leaving gaps for a read operation.
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?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by bullet points and usage guidelines. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good context for a read operation, including resource details and usage scenarios. However, it lacks information on output format (e.g., JSON structure) and potential limitations, which would enhance completeness for an agent.
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 the schema fully documents the two parameters (course_id, include_items). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or default behaviors, but the high coverage justifies the baseline score.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('List all modules'), resource ('in a course'), and scope ('with their items and completion status'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like canvas_module_get (single module) and canvas_module_items (items only) by emphasizing comprehensive listing with items and status.
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?
The description provides clear usage contexts ('See course structure and organization', 'Track module completion progress', 'Find specific content within modules'), which help determine when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives (e.g., canvas_module_get for a single module), missing full differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return format (due dates, course context, submission/completion status) which is valuable behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or error handling, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose, lists return values clearly, then provides usage guidelines. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information, making it efficient and easy to scan.
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?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description does a good job covering purpose, returns, and usage. It explains what the tool returns (due dates, course context, etc.) which compensates for the lack of output schema. However, for a tool with 3 parameters and no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral context like authentication or error handling.
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 the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but with complete schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't need to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get planner items - your upcoming assignments, quizzes, discussions, and events.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('planner items') with concrete examples. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'canvas_todo_list' or 'canvas_upcoming_events', which might have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance with a dedicated section: 'This is the best tool for: - Seeing what's due soon - Planning your week - Finding overdue items.' This clearly indicates when to use this tool versus alternatives, though it doesn't name specific sibling tools as alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It clearly describes the read-only nature (returns information) and adds valuable context about API limitations (cannot retrieve actual quiz questions). However, it doesn't mention error conditions, authentication requirements, rate limits, or response format details.
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?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement, bulleted return values for quick scanning, and a critical note about limitations. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and important information is front-loaded.
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 read operation with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description provides good coverage of what information is returned and important limitations. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more behavioral context (error handling, response structure) to be fully complete.
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 the schema already fully documents both parameters (course_id and quiz_id). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 when schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific quiz'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like canvas_quiz_list (which lists quizzes) and canvas_quiz_submission (which deals with submissions). It specifies the exact scope of information retrieved.
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?
The description implies usage context by specifying 'a specific quiz' (requiring quiz_id) and listing what information is returned, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like canvas_quiz_list or canvas_assignment_get. The note about API limitations provides some exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns specific data (titles, descriptions, points, criteria count) and implies it's a read operation, but lacks details on permissions, pagination, error handling, or rate limits, which are important for a list tool.
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?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose, followed by additional context and usage examples in bullet points, with no wasted sentences.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly complete, covering purpose, usage, and return data. However, it lacks behavioral details like pagination or error handling, which would be beneficial for a list operation.
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%, with the parameter 'course_id' documented in the schema. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining where to find the course ID or its format, so it meets the baseline of 3.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verb ('List') and resource ('all rubrics in a course'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'canvas_rubric_for_assignment' and 'canvas_rubric_get' by specifying it lists all rubrics rather than retrieving a specific one or one for an assignment.
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?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('See grading standards for a course', 'Find rubric IDs for detailed views'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, such as the sibling 'canvas_rubric_for_assignment' for assignment-specific rubrics.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: conversion (markdown to plain text), splitting (into ~400KB chunks), and file creation (numbered part files). However, it lacks details on error handling, performance characteristics, or what happens if input doesn't meet requirements. The description doesn't contradict any annotations.
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?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence adds value: the first states the overall goal, the next explains the conversion and splitting process, and the final sentence describes the return value. There is no wasted text.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (file processing with conversion and splitting) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description does a good job explaining what the tool does and what it returns ('paths to prepared files'). However, it could be more complete by detailing error cases or the format of returned paths.
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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds some context by mentioning '~400KB chunks' which relates to max_size_kb, but doesn't provide additional meaning beyond what's in the schema descriptions. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Prepare content for NotebookLM upload', 'Converts and splits content') and identifies the resource ('content', 'files'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools by focusing on content preparation rather than authentication, listing, or uploading operations.
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?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Prepare content for NotebookLM upload'), implying it should be used before uploading. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools (e.g., notebooklm_upload_sources might be the next step).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it requires authentication (addressing auth needs) and specifies the return format ('Returns a list of notebook titles'), which is crucial for a tool with no output schema. It doesn't mention rate limits or other constraints, but for a simple list tool, this is reasonably transparent.
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?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by authentication requirement and return value, all in three concise sentences with zero waste. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information without fluff.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete enough: it states the purpose, authentication needs, and return format. It could potentially mention pagination or error handling, but for a basic list tool, this covers the key context adequately.
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?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, which is appropriate, and it compensates by explaining the return value. Baseline for 0 params is 4, as it handles the lack of parameters well without redundancy.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all notebooks in NotebookLM'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'canvas_notebook_list' (which doesn't exist in the provided list), but since all siblings are Canvas-related except other NotebookLM tools, the distinction is somewhat implied but not explicit.
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?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use it by stating 'Requires authentication (run notebooklm_auth_setup first if needed)', which is a clear prerequisite. It doesn't mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the context (listing notebooks) is straightforward, and the authentication requirement is a key usage guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the default behavior ('Returns active courses by default') and implies it's a read operation, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or response format. It adds some context but lacks details needed for full transparency in an unannotated tool.
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?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear main statement followed by a purposeful bulleted list. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality.
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 read-only list tool with 2 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides good context about purpose and usage. However, without annotations or output schema, it could better explain response format or behavioral constraints. It's mostly complete but has minor gaps in transparency.
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 the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain enrollment_state values or include_favorites implications). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
The description clearly states the specific action ('List all courses for the current user') and resource ('courses'), distinguishing it from siblings like canvas_course_get (single course) or canvas_dashboard (broader overview). It specifies scope ('for the current user') and default behavior ('Returns active courses by default'), making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage scenarios in a bulleted list: 'Get an overview of enrolled courses', 'Find course IDs for other operations', and 'Check enrollment status'. This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like canvas_dashboard or canvas_course_get, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns specific data fields (titles, descriptions, due dates, etc.), which adds useful behavioral context beyond a basic 'list' operation. However, it does not mention potential limitations like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions, leaving gaps for a mutation-free read operation.
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?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement, a bulleted list of returns, and a 'Use this to:' section—all in three concise parts. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, and it is front-loaded with the core functionality.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, returns, and usage guidelines. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like pagination or error handling, which would be beneficial for a list operation. The absence of an output schema means the description must fully explain returns, which it does adequately but not exhaustively.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage (course_id is well-described), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema, but it implicitly reinforces the need for a course_id by stating 'in a course'. This slight contextual addition justifies a score above baseline, though not a 5 since no new parameter semantics are introduced.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'all quizzes in a course', making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like canvas_quiz_get (which retrieves a single quiz) by emphasizing listing multiple items. The title is null, so the description fully carries the purpose definition.
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?
The 'Use this to:' section provides clear context for when to use this tool: to see upcoming quizzes, find quiz IDs for details, and check quiz settings. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives (e.g., canvas_quiz_get for detailed info on a specific quiz), which prevents a perfect score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: the tool performs write operations (uploading, creating notebooks), specifies source types and formats, provides concrete examples, and discloses important limits (~500KB per source, 50-300 sources per notebook). This covers most essential behavioral aspects for an upload tool.
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?
The description is well-structured and efficiently organized: it starts with the core purpose, explains parameters with clear examples, and ends with important limits. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse while being comprehensive.
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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does an excellent job covering the essential context: purpose, usage, parameters, examples, and limits. The main gap is the lack of information about return values or error conditions, but given the tool's complexity and the absence of structured output documentation, this is reasonably complete.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds some value by explaining what 'sources' should contain (with examples and type details) and clarifying that 'notebook_name' triggers creation if non-existent, but doesn't provide significant additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema.
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?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Upload sources') and resource ('to a NotebookLM notebook'), with explicit details about source types (website URLs or files) and notebook creation behavior. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'notebooklm_list_notebooks' or 'notebooklm_prepare_content' by focusing on upload functionality.
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?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool (uploading website URLs or files to a notebook) and mentions that it creates the notebook if it doesn't exist. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among sibling tools, though the context is sufficiently clear for typical usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it requires manual user interaction (browser login), saves session data for future automated use, and is a one-time setup. It doesn't mention error handling or specific permission scopes, but covers the essential workflow clearly.
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?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by bullet points for critical steps and a concluding note about persistence. Every sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, bullets detail the manual process, and the last explains the one-time nature. No wasted words.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (authentication setup with manual steps) and no annotations or output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does, the required user actions, and the persistence of the session. It could mention what happens after setup (e.g., how other tools use the session) but covers the core context adequately.
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?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the authentication process. This meets the baseline expectation for a parameterless tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Setup NotebookLM authentication' with the specific action of enabling authentication through Google login. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on authentication setup rather than Canvas or NotebookLM content operations. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'notebooklm_auth_check' which might be a closer sibling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'This only needs to be done once (session persists)' and 'IMPORTANT: This requires manual interaction!' It clearly indicates this is for initial setup versus repeated authentication checks, though it doesn't name 'notebooklm_auth_check' as an alternative for subsequent verifications.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns authentication status and mentions the need for setup if not authenticated, which adds useful context. However, it lacks details on error handling, response format, or any rate limits, leaving behavioral gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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?
The description is front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence, followed by a concise explanation of the return value and alternative action. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly efficient and well-structured.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and next steps. However, it could improve by specifying the return format (e.g., boolean or structured data) or error cases, but for a simple auth check, it's largely adequate.
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?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter information, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is applied as it meets expectations for a tool with no parameters.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('NotebookLM authentication status'), and distinguishes it from its sibling notebooklm_auth_setup by indicating the latter is needed if not authenticated. It directly answers what the tool does without being vague or tautological.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use this tool (to check authentication status) and when to use an alternative (run notebooklm_auth_setup if not authenticated). It provides clear context and exclusions, helping the agent choose between these two sibling tools effectively.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![canvas-mcp-developer MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Shigakuresama/canvas-mcp-developer/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Shigakuresama/canvas-mcp-developer)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![canvas-mcp-developer MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Shigakuresama/canvas-mcp-developer/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Shigakuresama/canvas-mcp-developer)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Shigakuresama/canvas-mcp-developer'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server