Canvas LMS 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 states the tool retrieves an assignment, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't mention potential behaviors like error handling (e.g., for invalid IDs), authentication requirements, rate limits, or data format. This leaves significant 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.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is highly concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by bullet points for arguments and returns. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and key information is front-loaded.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic operation and parameters but lacks behavioral context (e.g., error cases) and output details. Without annotations or output schema, more guidance on returns would improve completeness for a read operation.

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 description lists parameters ('course_id' and 'assignment_id') and their purpose, adding meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. However, it doesn't specify parameter formats (e.g., integer ranges) or relationships (e.g., that assignment_id must belong to the given course_id). With low schema coverage, this provides basic compensation but not full detail.

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: 'Get a single assignment by ID.' This specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('assignment'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_assignments' which retrieves multiple assignments. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other single-retrieval tools like 'get_quiz' or 'get_file', which slightly reduces specificity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_assignments' for multiple assignments or 'get_course' for broader course data, nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts (e.g., needing a valid course ID). Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.