get_moduleGet details for a single module by ID.
Get details for a single module by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| course_id | Yes | The Canvas course ID | |
| module_id | Yes | The Canvas module 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}$",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / course_id / typeRemoved value: -"number"Input schema / properties / module_id / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+ "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "pattern": "^[1-9][0-9]{0,18}$",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / module_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 safety is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that — it doesn't say what 'details' comprises, whether the module can be missing, or how errors surface. It essentially restates the name.
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 short sentence with the key qualifiers ('single', 'by ID') front-loaded. No filler, though at this length the sentence is arguably too sparse to be maximally useful.
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, annotation-covered read tool with fully documented params, the description is adequate to call it. However, with no output schema it doesn't hint at what 'details' are returned, and it omits any routing versus list_modules, leaving the definition minimally viable rather than 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%; both course_id and module_id are documented in the schema as Canvas course/module IDs. The description only says 'by ID' and adds no format, constraint, or sourcing detail. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema carries the parameter burden.
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 details for a single module') and scopes it to one entity via 'by ID'. An agent can tell it apart from list_modules, but the description never names that sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. The closest thing is the implicit signal that you pass an ID (as opposed to listing), but the agent must infer that list_modules is the substitute when it lacks an ID. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.