Canvas LMS MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'Get[s] a single page,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions, error handling (e.g., invalid slug), rate limits, or whether it's idempotent. The return format is mentioned but lacks detail on structure or potential null responses. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero 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 well-structured and appropriately sized: a clear purpose statement followed by 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy. It could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating the return info into the main statement, but overall it's efficient and easy to parse.

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 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral details (e.g., error cases, auth needs) and a full output specification. For a simple read tool, this is adequate but has clear gaps, especially in transparency and usage guidance.

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 adds meaningful context beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'course_id' is a 'Course ID' and 'page_slug' is a 'Page URL slug' with examples like 'kurshandbok' and 'examination,' clarifying usage. However, it doesn't detail constraints (e.g., slug format or course_id validity), leaving some ambiguity. With 2 parameters and low schema coverage, this compensates well 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 tool's purpose: 'Get a single page by its URL slug.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('page'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_course or get_file that fetch different resource types. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like get_module_items or get_tabs, which might also retrieve page-like content.

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), exclusions (e.g., not for listing pages), or comparisons to siblings like get_course_syllabus or get_discussion_view, which might overlap in functionality. 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.