get_fileGet metadata for a single file by ID, including download URL.
Get metadata for a single file by ID, including download URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_id | Yes | The Canvas file ID | |
| 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}$",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / course_id / typeRemoved value: -"number"Input schema / properties / file_id / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+ "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "pattern": "^[1-9][0-9]{0,18}$",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / file_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 by structured data. The description usefully adds that the response includes a download URL, which is genuine behavioral context, but it says nothing about permissions scoping, file visibility/access restrictions, or error behavior for missing/deleted files.
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?
A single tight sentence that front-loads the operation and appends the one payload detail worth knowing. Zero filler, nothing redundant with the title.
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?
With no output schema, naming the download URL in the description is the right compensating move for a read-only, two-parameter tool. It stops short of enumerating the other metadata fields returned, so it is helpful but not fully complete.
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% and both parameters (course_id, file_id) are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's phrase 'by ID' adds only slight reinforcement and no format, type, or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides.
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 (Get), resource (metadata for a single file), the lookup key (by ID), and even names a returned field (download URL). It implicitly separates itself from list_files and download_file by scoping to a single file's metadata, but it never names a sibling explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.
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: use this when you already have a course_id and file_id and need that file's metadata. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to download_file (for content) or list_files (for discovery), which an agent must infer from the sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.