get_discussionRetrieve details for a specific Canvas discussion topic by providing the course ID and topic ID. Returns the discussion's full information for review or processing.
Get details for a single discussion topic by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topic_id | Yes | The Canvas discussion topic ID | |
| 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 cover the read-only safety profile, but the description itself adds no behavioral detail beyond the obvious: no mention of returned fields, nested entries, authorization requirements, or error behavior. For a simple getter this is acceptable but still a gap.
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?
Single sentence, active verb, front-loaded purpose. No filler or redundancy; the core use case is immediately visible.
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?
Low-complexity operation with two clearly documented parameters, but no output shape or expected behavior is described driven-absence of an output schema. Context is adequate to attempt a call, though a note on returned content would improve completeness.
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% (both course_id and topic_id are described). The description adds only the generic 'by ID' framing arboreal, so it stays at the baseline without enriching parameter meaning.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and names the resource ('single discussion topic'), and correctly narrows by ID. It's clear enough to distinguish from list/create/delete discussion tools, though 'details' is slightly generic about what the payload contains.
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 the read scenario: fetch one discussion topic when you have its ID. It does not explicitly contrast with list_discussions or state when to prefer it, but the singular-by-ID phrasing provides reasonable context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.