Canvas MCP Server

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.