Canvas LMS MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination and return format ('PaginatedResponse containing submissions with grades and comments'), which is helpful. However, it lacks details on authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'List' but not explicit). For a tool with 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 and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by organized sections for 'Args' and 'Returns'. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words, 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 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a decent job but has gaps. It explains parameters and return format adequately, but lacks behavioral context (e.g., auth, errors) and doesn't fully address sibling tool differentiation. For a list tool with pagination, it's minimally viable but could be more complete.

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 4 parameters: 'course_id' as 'Course ID', 'include' with examples, and pagination details for 'page' and 'items_per_page'. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could benefit from more detail on 'include' options or parameter constraints.

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 the current user's submissions for a course, including grades and feedback.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('submissions'), and scope ('current user's', 'for a course'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_assignments' or 'get_assignment' which might overlap in 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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_assignments' or 'get_quiz' that might be related, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions (e.g., whether the user must be enrolled in the course). Usage is implied by the purpose but not explicitly stated.

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