Skip to main content
Glama
bruchris

Canvas LMS MCP Server

by bruchris
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Get Content Export

get_content_export
Read-only

Check if a content export is complete and obtain its temporary download link.

Instructions

Get the status of a content export. When workflow_state is "exported", attachment.url contains a time-limited download link — download it promptly, as the URL expires (re-fetch to get a fresh one). Returns attachment: null while still "created"/"exporting" or on "failed".

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
course_idYesThe Canvas course ID
export_idYesThe export ID returned by create_content_export

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. Addedv1.18.3

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds meaningful state behavior: attachment is null until 'exported', the download link is time-limited, and re-fetching is needed. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the most important state/expiry behavior. No filler or repeated schema information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The description covers the main use case (polling for export status), the meaningful states (created/exporting/exported/failed), the attachment null behavior, and the time-limited URL with a re-fetch remediation. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret the result without an output schema.

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 coverage is 100% (course_id and content_export_id have descriptions), so the description is not required to repeat parameter docs. It does not add extra semantics about the parameters, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Begins with a specific verb+object construction: 'Get the status of a content export.' This clearly identifies both the action and the resource, and the detail about workflow_state and attachment distinguishes it from other get_* tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Clear context is provided: this is the status-checking tool for content exports, and the description implies a polling use case. However, it never explicitly names sibling tools like create_content_export or list_content_exports, so it leaves the when-to-use vs alternatives distinction implicit.

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