get_moduleRetrieve details for a specific module using its course ID and module ID. Get module attributes to support Canvas course management.
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.
v1.18.11Input 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. The description adds no new behavioral details beyond 'get details', but it also does not contradict the annotations. The bar is lowered by the annotations, and nothing critical is missing for a simple read operation.
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 zero filler. The core operation, target, and identifier scope are all present.
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?
Complete for a simple read operation: two identified parametersced, no side effects, and 'details' hints at the return value. Lacks explicit statement of return fields, but the low complexity makes this a minor gap.
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?
Input schema covers both required parameters (course_id and module_id) with descriptions, so coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra semantics; baseline of 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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('module') and narrows scope to a single record by ID. It is instantly distinguishable from sibling tools like get_assignment, create_module, or list_module_items.
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 makes the usage context clear: you need a module ID. It doesn't explicitly mention when an alternative should be used, but the tool's read-only singular fetch purpose is unambiguous given the sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.