get_course_activity_streamRetrieve a summary of recent course activity, showing counts of submissions, discussions, announcements, and other events by type.
Get a summary of recent activity in a course. Returns counts of recent events grouped by type (submissions, discussions, announcements, etc.).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| course_id | Yes | The Canvas course ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
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 provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail by stating that results are grouped counts, not individual events. It does not define what 'recent' means or whether limits apply, but with read-only safety covered, the description carries enough weight.
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?
Two short sentences clearly front-load the tool's role and return format. The examples (submissions, discussions, announcements, etc.) convey nuance without padding.
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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context: it names the resource, the return format, and examples of event types. The only missing piece is a precise 'recent' window, which is a common API ambiguity and minor given the tool's simple scope.
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?
The only parameter, course_id, is fully described in the schema; description coverage is 100%. The description does not add extra meaning beyond stating the parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 states the verb ('Get'), the exact resource ('summary of recent activity in a course'), and explicitly defines the return value as counts grouped by event types. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling analytics tools by describing summary counts rather than detailed analysis.
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?
The description implies when to use the tool—when you need a summary of recent activity—but provides no explicit alternatives or exclusions. An agent would need to infer how this relates to tools like get_course_analytics or get_dashboard_cards.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.