get_account_reportsList available report types for a Canvas account.
List available report types for a Canvas account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account_id | Yes | The Canvas account ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.18.15Input schema / properties / account_id / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+ "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "pattern": "^[1-9][0-9]{0,18}$",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / account_id / 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 already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds the useful nuance that it returns report *types* (a catalog) rather than report data, but omits pagination, auth scope, or any other behavioral detail.
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?
A single efficient sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and no filler. It could be slightly sharper about the types-vs-data distinction, but there is no wasted text.
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 simple read-only listing tool with one fully documented parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is largely sufficient. The main gap is the absence of any usage context relative to sibling account tools.
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% with a single account_id parameter fully documented in the schema. The description's phrase 'for a Canvas account' implies the parameter but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
The description names a specific verb (List), resource (report types), and scope (a Canvas account), which clearly separates it from report-retrieval tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the many other account-level siblings such as get_account, list_account_courses, or list_account_users.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of what to do with the returned report types. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and one-line description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.