create_moduleCreate a new module in a course.
Create a new module in a course.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name of the module | |
| position | No | Position of the module in the list | |
| course_id | Yes | The Canvas course ID | |
| unlock_at | No | Date/time the module unlocks (ISO 8601) | |
| prerequisite_module_ids | No | IDs of modules that must be completed before this one |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.18.15Input schema / properties / course_id / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+ "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "pattern": "^[1-9][0-9]{0,18}$",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / course_id / typeRemoved value: -"number"Input schema / properties / prerequisite_module_ids / items / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+ "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "pattern": "^[1-9][0-9]{0,18}$",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / prerequisite_module_ids / items / typeRemoved value: -"number"v1.18.11Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v1.18.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is a write operation with potential side effects. The description adds nothing beyond the purpose: it does not explain what gets created, what the destructive hint implies, whether modules can be deleted later, or any auth/rate-limit constraints.
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 single sentence is front-loaded and has no wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though it is arguably too sparse for a mutation tool with five parameters.
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?
For a destructive, open-world mutation tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits usage context, behavioral implications of the destructive hint, and any practical guidance beyond the basic purpose already implied by the name.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters (course_id, name, position, unlock_at, prerequisite_module_ids). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new module in a course') so an agent can tell it creates a module rather than a module item. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like create_module_item or update_module, which also create or modify module-related entities.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, required context (e.g., course_id must exist), or when to prefer update_module or create_module_item instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.