Skip to main content
Glama
bruchris

Canvas LMS MCP Server

by bruchris
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Create Peer Review

create_peer_review
Destructive

Assign a user to peer-review a submission.

Instructions

Assign a user to peer-review a submission.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
user_idYesThe Canvas user ID of the reviewer to assign
course_idYesThe Canvas course ID
assignment_idYesThe Canvas assignment ID
submission_idYesThe Canvas submission ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed8 schema fields changedv1.18.15
    • addedInput schema / properties / assignment_id / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+    "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+    "type": "integer"
+  },
+  {
+    "pattern": "^[1-9][0-9]{0,18}$",
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+]
    • removedInput schema / properties / assignment_id / type
      Removed value: -"number"
    • addedInput schema / properties / course_id / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+    "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+    "type": "integer"
+  },
+  {
+    "pattern": "^[1-9][0-9]{0,18}$",
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+]
    • removedInput schema / properties / course_id / type
      Removed value: -"number"
    • addedInput schema / properties / submission_id / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+    "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+    "type": "integer"
+  },
+  {
+    "pattern": "^[1-9][0-9]{0,18}$",
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+]
    • removedInput schema / properties / submission_id / type
      Removed value: -"number"
    • addedInput schema / properties / user_id / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+    "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+    "type": "integer"
+  },
+  {
+    "pattern": "^[1-9][0-9]{0,18}$",
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+]
    • removedInput schema / properties / user_id / type
      Removed value: -"number"
  2. 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"
  3. 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 declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, yet the description offers no behavioral context: what a prior assignment is replaced by, whether duplicate assignments stack or overwrite, or any permission requirements. Since the destructive hint is exactly the kind of behavior the description should elaborate on, its silence here is a real gap.

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?

A single efficient sentence with no waste, correctly front-loaded. However, it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than being admirably compact.

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?

For a destructive, open-world mutation with no output schema, the description leaves out assignment semantics, permissions, and side effects. It is calling-instruction-sufficient only at the bare minimum level.

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 four IDs are already documented in the schema with their Canvas semantics. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Assign a user to peer-review a submission'), which is enough to distinguish it from the read-oriented siblings list_peer_reviews and get_submission_peer_reviews. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the action/query split is evident from the name and phrasing.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g. that the course must have peer reviews enabled or that the submission must exist), and no note on whether assigning an already-assigned reviewer is allowed. The agent must infer all of this.

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