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 mentions retrieving 'full discussion view with participants and all entries,' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify permissions required, rate limits, error conditions, or pagination behavior. 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.

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 structured sections for Args and Returns. It's efficient with minimal waste, though the 'Args' and 'Returns' labels are slightly redundant given the schema context. Every sentence adds value.

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 (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, and output structure. Without an output schema, the return description is vague ('Full discussion view with participants and all entries'), leaving ambiguity.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds basic semantics by listing the two parameters (course_id and discussion_id) and their roles, but doesn't explain format constraints (e.g., integer ranges) or provide examples. It compensates partially for the low coverage but not fully.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'full view of a discussion topic including all replies.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_discussions' by focusing on a single discussion's detailed view rather than listing multiple discussions. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other potential siblings beyond the provided list.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing a specific course/discussion ID), exclusions, or comparisons to other tools like 'list_discussions' for broader queries. 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.