Canvas LMS MCP Server

Create Discussion

create_discussion

Destructive

Create a new discussion topic in a course.

Instructions

Create a new discussion topic in a course.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`title`	Yes	Title of the discussion topic
`message`	No	Body text of the discussion (supports HTML)
`course_id`	Yes	The Canvas course ID
`published`	No	Whether the topic is published
`delayed_post_at`	No	ISO 8601 datetime to schedule the topic for future posting
`discussion_type`	No	Discussion type: side_comment (flat) or threaded
`is_announcement`	No	When true, requests an announcement instead of a discussion topic. Canvas silently downgrades this to a plain discussion topic (no error) if the caller lacks announcement permission in the course — check the response's own `is_announcement` field rather than assuming the request was honored.
`require_initial_post`	No	Require students to post before seeing replies

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.18.15Oct 14, 2026

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"
```

Changed1 schema field changedv1.18.11Sep 10, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

Changed1 schema field changedv1.18.8Sep 2, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / delayed_post_at / pattern

Previous value: -"^(?:(?:\\d\\d[2468][048]|\\d\\d[13579][26]|\\d\\d0[48]|[02468][048]00|[13579][26]00)-02-29|\\d{4}-(?:(?:0[13578]|1[02])-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|3[01])|(?:0[469]|11)-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|30)|(?:02)-(?:0[1-9]|1\\d|2[0-8])))T(?:(?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d(?::[0-5]\\d(?:\\.\\d+)?)?(?:Z))$"New value: +"^(?:(?:\\d\\d[2468][048]|\\d\\d[13579][26]|\\d\\d0[48]|[02468][048]00|[13579][26]00)-02-29|\\d{4}-(?:(?:0[13578]|1[02])-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|3[01])|(?:0[469]|11)-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|30)|(?:02)-(?:0[1-9]|1\\d|2[0-8])))T(?:(?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d:[0-5]\\d(?:\\.\\d+)?(?:Z))$"

Changed1 schema field changedv1.18.4Aug 19, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / is_announcement / description

Previous value: -"When true, creates an announcement instead of a discussion topic"New value: +"When true, requests an announcement instead of a discussion topic. Canvas silently downgrades this to a plain discussion topic (no error) if the caller lacks announcement permission in the course — check the response's own `is_announcement` field rather than assuming the request was honored."

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.18.3Jul 24, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / delayed_post_at

Added value: +{
+  "description": "ISO 8601 datetime to schedule the topic for future posting",
+  "format": "date-time",
+  "pattern": "^(?:(?:\\d\\d[2468][048]|\\d\\d[13579][26]|\\d\\d0[48]|[02468][048]00|[13579][26]00)-02-29|\\d{4}-(?:(?:0[13578]|1[02])-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|3[01])|(?:0[469]|11)-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|30)|(?:02)-(?:0[1-9]|1\\d|2[0-8])))T(?:(?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d(?::[0-5]\\d(?:\\.\\d+)?)?(?:Z))$",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / is_announcement

Added value: +{
+  "description": "When true, creates an announcement instead of a discussion topic",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

First observedv1.18.0May 25, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=true, so the agent has the safety profile. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that — it does not mention permissions, that is_announcement can be silently downgraded (a critical gotcha that appears only in the schema), or any post-creation side effects.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is efficient. It is arguably under-specified rather than over-long, but the structural discipline is sound.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no output schema and 8 parameters, and the description covers none of the operational concerns — no permission requirements, no scheduling semantics for delayed_post_at, no announcement-downgrade caveat. For a create tool with this much surface area, the description is too thin.

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 all 8 parameters are documented in the schema itself, establishing a baseline of 3. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Create a new discussion topic'), and 'in a course' clarifies the scope. However, it makes no attempt to distinguish itself from close siblings like post_discussion_entry, create_page, or list_discussions, so the agent gets no differentiation help.

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 prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. An agent cannot tell from this text whether to use this tool versus create_page or post_discussion_entry.

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

Deploy Server

Create Discussion

Instructions

Input Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Other Tools