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 for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get items' which implies a read operation, but doesn't clarify permissions needed, pagination behavior, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'items' encompasses (e.g., assignments, pages, quizzes). For a tool with no 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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get items for a module'), followed by parameter listings. There's no wasted text, but the structure is minimalistic—it could benefit from better organization (e.g., separating purpose from args). However, every sentence serves a purpose, making it efficient.

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 coverage, no output schema, and a vague purpose, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'items' are, how results are returned, or any behavioral traits. For a tool in a complex LMS context with many siblings, this leaves the agent poorly equipped to use it correctly without additional context.

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 value by listing 'course_id: Course ID' and 'module_id: Module ID', which clarifies the parameter names but doesn't explain format, constraints, or where to obtain these IDs. It compensates slightly for the coverage gap but remains inadequate for full 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 items for a module' which provides a basic verb+resource combination ('get' + 'items'), but it's vague about what 'items' specifically refers to in the Canvas LMS context. It doesn't distinguish this tool from siblings like 'get_course_modules' or 'list_assignments' which might retrieve related content. The purpose is understandable but lacks 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_course_modules', 'list_assignments', and 'list_quizzes', the agent has no indication whether this tool retrieves a specific subset of content (e.g., all items within a module) or how it differs. The description implies usage by listing required parameters but offers no contextual advice.

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