Skip to main content
Glama
bruchris

Canvas LMS MCP Server

by bruchris
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Download File

download_file
Read-only

Retrieve Canvas file content by file ID. Text files return as readable text; binary files return as base64 data. Files over 10 MB are refused.

Instructions

Download the content of a Canvas file by ID. Text files (plain text, HTML, JSON, XML, JavaScript) are returned as readable text. Binary files (images, PDFs, etc.) are returned as base64-encoded data. Files larger than 10 MB are refused.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
file_idYesThe Canvas file ID
course_idNoOptional Canvas course ID to scope the file lookup

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 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"
  2. First observedv1.18.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing response format differences (text vs. base64 binary) and a 10 MB size refusal. No contradiction with annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three concise, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Each sentence adds a distinct useful fact: core action, output encoding, and a hard size limit.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple read-only tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers encoding and size constraints. It omits minor operational details like error behavior, but nothing critical for basic invocation is missing.

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 has 100% description coverage for both file_id and course_id. The description mainly restates the schema's meaning and adds no deep semantic detail, so it neither fails nor substantially enhances the structured definitions.

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: 'Download the content of a Canvas file by ID.' It clearly indicates this tool retrieves file content, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_file, so it misses the differentiation that would earn a 5.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_file or list_files. The description explains what the tool does but gives no conditions, exclusions, or comparison to siblings.

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