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 authentication context, but lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or what constitutes a 'PlannerItem'. This is a significant gap for a tool with multiple parameters and no output schema.

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 clear sections for Args and Returns, and each sentence adds value without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a tool with 5 parameters, though the 'Returns' section could be more informative given the lack of output schema.

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 explaining inputs but falls short on behavioral context and output details. It's minimally viable but lacks depth for a tool that interacts with user data and involves pagination.

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 meaningful context for all parameters: 'start_date' and 'end_date' are explained as ISO 8601 format dates, 'context_codes' with an example, and pagination details for 'page' and 'items_per_page'. This goes beyond the bare schema, though it could specify defaults or constraints more explicitly.

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 ('planner items for the authenticated user'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_calendar_events' or 'list_assignments', which might also list user-specific items in a similar context.

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 like 'list_calendar_events' or 'list_assignments', which might overlap in functionality. It mentions 'for the authenticated user' but doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.

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