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 offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions pagination ('PaginatedResponse') but doesn't explain rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or whether it's read-only (implied by 'List' but not explicit). For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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. The Args/Returns structure is clear, though some sentences like 'List files for a course or folder.' could be more specific. No wasted text, but minor room for improvement in precision.

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 with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format beyond 'PaginatedResponse[File]', error handling, or parameter dependencies. For a list tool with filtering options, more context is needed for effective use.

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 but adds limited value. It lists parameters with brief hints ('Optional Course ID', 'Page number (1-indexed)'), but doesn't explain relationships (e.g., mutual exclusivity of course_id/folder_id), valid values for 'include', or default behaviors. This leaves significant gaps for 5 undocumented parameters.

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 files for a course or folder.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('files'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_file' (singular retrieval) and other list tools for different resources. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all list tools, keeping it at 4 rather than 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 when to use 'course_id' vs 'folder_id', how it relates to siblings like 'get_file' or other list tools, or any prerequisites. The agent must infer usage from parameter names alone.

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