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 a file but doesn't describe what 'Get' entails (e.g., read-only operation, returns metadata/content, requires permissions, error handling). For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a structured breakdown of args and returns. There's no wasted text, and each section earns its place by organizing key information. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the args/returns into the main sentence, but it's efficient overall.

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 complexity (simple retrieval with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value ('File object' is vague—does it include content, metadata, or both?), error conditions, or behavioral nuances. For a tool with no structured support, more detail is needed to guide effective use.

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 minimal semantics: it lists the parameters (course_id, file_id) and their roles in retrieving a file, which helps clarify that both IDs are needed. However, it doesn't explain format constraints, valid ranges, or relationships between parameters, leaving gaps beyond the basic naming.

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 file by ID' specifies the verb (get) and resource (file). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_files' (which lists multiple files) by focusing on retrieving a single file using identifiers. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other single-resource retrieval tools like 'get_assignment' or 'get_page' beyond the resource type.

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 valid course_id and file_id), when not to use it (e.g., for listing files), or refer to sibling tools like 'list_files' for browsing. Usage is implied by the name and parameters 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.