Skip to main content
Glama
bruchris

Canvas LMS MCP Server

by bruchris
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Create Assignment

create_assignment
Destructive

Create a new Canvas assignment with due dates, points, and submission types. Configure publication, grading, and grouping options via the MCP server.

Instructions

Create a new assignment in a course.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesAssignment name
due_atNoDue date in ISO 8601 format (e.g. 2026-05-01T23:59:00Z)
lock_atNoThe date after which the assignment locks and stops accepting submissions, in ISO 8601 format. Must be after due_at when there is one
course_idYesThe Canvas course ID
publishedNoWhether the assignment is published and visible to students
unlock_atNoThe date the assignment becomes available to students, in ISO 8601 format. Must be before due_at when there is one
descriptionNoAssignment description (HTML supported)
points_possibleNoMaximum points for this assignment
submission_typesNoAllowed submission types (e.g. ["online_upload", "online_text_entry", "none"])
assignment_group_idNoID of the assignment group to place this assignment in
omit_from_final_gradeNoWhether to leave this assignment out of the final grade calculation
grade_group_students_individuallyNoFor group assignments, whether each member is graded separately (false = one shared group grade)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.18.16
    • addedInput schema / properties / lock_at
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The date after which the assignment locks and stops accepting submissions, in ISO 8601 format. Must be after due_at when there is one",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / unlock_at
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The date the assignment becomes available to students, in ISO 8601 format. Must be before due_at when there is one",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed7 schema fields changedv1.18.15
    • addedInput schema / properties / assignment_group_id / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+    "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+    "type": "integer"
+  },
+  {
+    "pattern": "^[1-9][0-9]{0,18}$",
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+]
    • removedInput schema / properties / assignment_group_id / type
      Removed value: -"number"
    • addedInput schema / properties / course_id / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+    "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+    "type": "integer"
+  },
+  {
+    "pattern": "^[1-9][0-9]{0,18}$",
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+]
    • removedInput schema / properties / course_id / type
      Removed value: -"number"
    • addedInput schema / properties / grade_group_students_individually
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "For group assignments, whether each member is graded separately (false = one shared group grade)",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / omit_from_final_grade
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Whether to leave this assignment out of the final grade calculation",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / published
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Whether the assignment is published and visible to students",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  3. Changed1 schema field changedv1.18.11
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  4. First observedv1.18.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether the assignment is created published or unpublished by default, what happens to date inconsistencies (unlock_at/lock_at), what permissions are required, or what the call returns. For a 12-parameter write operation, that is a meaningful omission.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The single sentence is front-loaded and contains no filler, which is good structure. Against a 12-parameter tool with grading and date semantics, however, it is under-specified rather than truly concise, leaving the definition thin.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and only destructive/openWorld annotations, the description would need to carry defaults, side effects, and required-privilege context. It supplies none of these, so an agent knows what the call does but not how to call it safely or what state it leaves behind.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every one of the 12 parameters is documented in the schema itself, including the ISO 8601 date constraints and cross-field ordering rules. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline expectation at full coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new assignment in a course'), so an agent knows exactly what operation is performed. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings like update_assignment, create_assignment_override, or set_student_assignment_dates, which a caller must distinguish on their own.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites (e.g., that course_id must reference an existing course the caller can write to), and no mention of alternatives such as update_assignment for modifying an existing assignment. The agent is left to infer all routing decisions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools