Skip to main content
Glama
bruchris

Canvas LMS MCP Server

by bruchris
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Get Assignment

get_assignment
Read-only

Get details for a single assignment by ID. Use include to request submission, overrides, all_dates, score_statistics, and other optional fields.

Instructions

Get details for a single assignment by ID. Use include to request submission, overrides, all_dates, score_statistics, and other optional fields.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
includeNoExtra fields to include on the assignment (Canvas include[] param)
all_datesNoReturn all dates associated with this assignment
course_idYesThe Canvas course ID
assignment_idYesThe Canvas assignment ID
override_assignment_datesNoApply assignment overrides to due/unlock/lock dates
needs_grading_count_by_sectionNoBreak needs_grading_count down by section

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 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"
  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

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that — no note on permissions, whether overrides/dates alter the returned object, or any rate/visibility caveat — so it contributes little to the transparency burden.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core action stated first and the optional-field hint second. Every clause earns its place.

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 read-only single-resource getter with full schema coverage, the description is adequate to call the tool correctly. With no output schema present, a brief note on what the response contains would have closed the remaining gap, but nothing critical 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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented inline, which sets the baseline at 3. The description names a few include values (submission, overrides, all_dates, score_statistics) but adds no semantics beyond the enum list already in the schema.

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 ('Get details for a single assignment by ID'), which is unambiguous. It does not, however, name or distinguish itself from siblings like list_assignments or get_submission, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives guidance on using the `include` parameter, which is useful, but never says when to pick this tool over list_assignments or how it relates to get_submission. Usage is implied by the 'single assignment by ID' framing rather than stated.

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