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 adds some context, but fails to describe critical traits like whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what data the response includes. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant 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 bullet-pointed Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information, making it 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 the complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks details on behavioral traits, output structure beyond 'PaginatedResponse,' and usage context, leaving room for improvement in guiding the agent effectively.

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?

The description lists all 4 parameters with brief explanations, adding meaning beyond the schema (which has 0% description coverage). However, it doesn't elaborate on details like valid values for 'include' or constraints on 'page' and 'items_per_page,' only partially compensating for the low schema coverage.

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 ('quizzes for a course'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_quiz' (which likely retrieves a single quiz) or other list tools, missing full 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 'get_quiz' or other list tools. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a valid course ID, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage direction beyond the basic purpose.

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