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 mentions pagination and returns a 'PaginatedResponse,' which is helpful, but lacks critical details like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether the operation is read-only. For a list operation with 5 parameters, 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 with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value: the purpose line sets context, parameter descriptions clarify usage, and the return statement informs about pagination. It's appropriately sized for a 5-parameter tool without unnecessary fluff.

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 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a decent job but has gaps. It explains parameters well and mentions pagination, but lacks behavioral context (auth, errors, limits) and doesn't describe the 'PaginatedResponse' structure. For a list tool in an educational context, this is minimally adequate but incomplete.

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 semantics for all 5 parameters: context_codes (with an example), start_date/end_date (format specified), and pagination details. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema, though it could benefit from more context on parameter interactions (e.g., how date ranges work with pagination).

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 calendar events for courses.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('calendar events for courses'), making it distinct from sibling tools like list_announcements or list_assignments. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from list_planner_items or other event-related tools, keeping it at 4 instead of 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 sibling tools like list_planner_items or explain scenarios where this tool is preferred (e.g., for course-specific events vs. general calendar events). The absence of usage context leaves the agent without clear selection criteria.

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