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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.