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 full burden. It mentions pagination via 'per_page' and returns a list, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens with invalid inputs. For a tool with no 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.

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

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses a clear structure with Args and Returns sections, making it easy to parse. However, the 'Args' and 'Returns' labels are somewhat redundant given the schema, and some sentences could be more tightly integrated.

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 no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers parameters superficially but lacks details on return format (what Module objects contain), error conditions, pagination behavior beyond 'per_page', and how it differs from siblings. For a tool in this context, more comprehensive guidance is needed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all three parameters (course_id, include, per_page) and briefly explains each, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't detail what 'include' options are available or provide examples, leaving some ambiguity. The baseline would be lower without this param info, but it's adequate for basic understanding.

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 states 'Get modules for a course' which clearly indicates the verb (get) and resource (modules for a course). However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_module_items' or 'list_courses', leaving ambiguity about scope and differentiation. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity compared to alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_module_items' or 'list_courses'. The description only states what it does, without context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. This leaves the agent to infer usage from 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.