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. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether it returns live or cached data. For a 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, with the core purpose stated first. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections add structure, though they could be more integrated. There's no wasted text, but it could be slightly more polished (e.g., combining sentences).

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 complexity (a read operation with one parameter), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value's structure beyond 'Dict with tab items', missing details like keys, data types, or examples. For a tool with no structured support, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

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 minimal semantics beyond the input schema. It explains that 'course_id' is a 'Course ID', which matches the schema's 'Course Id' title, but with 0% schema description coverage, it doesn't compensate by detailing format, constraints, or examples. Since there's only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the description adds little value, so it's scored lower at 3.

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 available tabs/navigation items for a course.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('tabs/navigation items'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_course_modules' or 'get_page' by focusing on navigation structure. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'get_course' might also provide navigation info), so it's not a perfect 5.

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, compare with sibling tools like 'get_course' (which might include tabs), or specify use cases (e.g., for building course navigation menus). The only implied context is needing course tabs, but no explicit when/when-not instructions are given.

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