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 this is a list operation, implying it's read-only, but doesn't address other behavioral aspects like permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, or what happens if the course_id is invalid. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 concise and well-structured: the purpose is stated upfront in a single sentence, followed by clear 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. There's no wasted text, and the information is easy to parse. It could be slightly improved by integrating the sections more seamlessly, 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 complexity (a list operation with one parameter), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value beyond 'Dict with assignment group items'—missing details on structure, keys, or examples. For a tool with no structured support, more context is needed to make it fully usable by an agent.

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 parameter semantics: it specifies that 'course_id' is a 'Course ID', which is slightly more informative than the schema's 'Course Id' but doesn't explain format, constraints, or where to find it. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the description doesn't fully compensate for the lack of schema details, so a 3 is appropriate.

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: 'List assignment groups for a course' specifies the verb (list) and resource (assignment groups), and it adds useful context about what the groups include ('shows grade weighting/categories'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its sibling 'list_assignments' or other list tools, which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 sibling tools like 'list_assignments' or explain why someone would choose assignment groups over assignments. There's also no information about prerequisites or context for using this tool, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.

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