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 only states it returns paginated results. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'actively enrolled' means (e.g., current term only). The mention of pagination is helpful but insufficient for a read operation with zero annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by structured sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers parameters and mentions paginated return, but lacks details on response structure, error handling, or behavioral context. For a simple list tool, it's minimally viable but leaves gaps in understanding full behavior.

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 adds clear meaning for both parameters: 'page' as 'Page number (1-indexed)' and 'items_per_page' as 'Number of items per page', which are not in the schema. This fully documents the parameters, though it doesn't explain defaults or constraints beyond indexing.

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 'courses' with the specific scope 'that the user is actively enrolled in'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_course' (singular) and 'list_assignments' (different resource), but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_enrollments' which might overlap. The purpose is specific and actionable.

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 implies usage for retrieving enrolled courses, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_course' (for single course details) or 'get_enrollments' (which might list enrollment records). No guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios is provided beyond the basic scope.

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