get_course_analyticsGet course-level activity analytics. Returns daily page view and participation counts.
Get course-level activity analytics. Returns daily page view and participation counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| course_id | Yes | The Canvas course ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.18.15Input schema / properties / course_id / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+ "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "pattern": "^[1-9][0-9]{0,18}$",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / course_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 safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing the return shape (daily page view and participation counts), which matters because there is no output schema; it does not mention aggregation limits, date-range behavior, or auth requirements.
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, zero filler: the purpose comes first and the return information second. Nothing redundant with the name or schema, and it is front-loaded correctly.
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 one-parameter read-only analytics tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns (daily page views, participation counts) and its scope. It stops short of date-range or time-window behavior, which the caller would need to know to interpret 'daily', but otherwise sufficient.
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?
Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with course_id documented as 'The Canvas course ID'. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get course-level activity analytics') and pins the scope to the course level, which implicitly separates it from get_student_analytics and get_assignment_analytics in the sibling list. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary from the scope word alone.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'course-level' hints at when this is the right analytics tool versus the student- or assignment-scoped variants, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. Adequate for a simple read tool but leaves routing judgment to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.