Canvas LMS MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but discloses minimal behavioral traits. It mentions pagination and returns a 'PaginatedResponse', which is helpful, but doesn't cover authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens with invalid course IDs. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 in the first sentence. The Args/Returns sections are structured clearly, though the formatting with quotes and line breaks could be cleaner. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words.

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 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks details on authentication, error handling, sibling differentiation, and full parameter semantics. It's adequate for a simple list tool but has clear gaps in 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 description must compensate. It lists all three parameters with brief explanations, adding meaning beyond the bare schema (e.g., 'List of course IDs to fetch announcements for', 'Page number (1-indexed)'). However, it doesn't detail constraints like valid ranges for 'page' or 'items_per_page', or format expectations for 'course_ids', leaving gaps.

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 ('List') and resource ('announcements for one or more courses'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_discussions' or 'list_calendar_events' which also list course-related items, missing full sibling differentiation.

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, when-not scenarios, or compare with other listing tools like 'list_discussions' for similar data. Usage is implied by the name 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.