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. It mentions pagination in the Returns section, which is useful, but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'PaginatedResponse' entails (e.g., structure, metadata). For a list operation with 6 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by organized sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying parameters and output without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a decent job but has gaps. It explains parameters well and hints at pagination, but lacks details on authentication, error handling, or the full structure of 'PaginatedResponse'. For a list tool with moderate complexity, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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 provides clear explanations for all 6 parameters, including enum values for 'bucket' and 'order_by', optionality for 'include', and defaults for 'page' and 'items_per_page'. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could elaborate on 'include' options like 'submission'.

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 ('assignments for a course'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_assignment' (singular) and 'list_submissions' (different resource), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them. The clarity is high but lacks explicit 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_submissions' or 'get_assignment'. The description only states what it does, without context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or comparisons to sibling tools. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to choose appropriately among similar tools.

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