get_gradebook_history_dayGet the graders and assignment IDs that had gradebook activity on a specific course date.
Get the graders and assignment IDs that had gradebook activity on a specific course date.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | Yes | The gradebook history date to inspect, in YYYY-MM-DD format | |
| 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 establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description does add genuine value by disclosing the return payload (graders and assignment IDs) in the absence of an output schema, but says nothing about pagination, permissions, or how dates are discovered.
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 front-loaded sentence with the resource and the scoping constraint stated up front and zero filler. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.
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 two-parameter read-only tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description does cover the essential missing piece (what is returned). It is still thin on how a valid date is obtained and how it relates to the plural days/feed siblings, leaving some context unaddressed.
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 the YYYY-MM-DD date format are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format, constraint, or range detail beyond that, 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+resource ('Get the graders and assignment IDs') bounded by a clear scope ('on a specific course date'), which is enough for an agent to understand the operation. It does not, however, name or contrast itself with close siblings like list_gradebook_history_days or get_gradebook_history_feed, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.
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 'specific course date' framing implies the tool is for single-day lookups, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to the alternative tools in the gradebook-history family. Usage is inferred rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.