get_my_gradesGet grade data for the authenticated student. If course_id is omitted, returns grades across all enrolled courses.
Get grade data for the authenticated student. If course_id is omitted, returns grades across all enrolled courses.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| course_id | No | The Canvas course ID (omit for all courses) |
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 declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the omit-for-all-courses scoping behavior, but says nothing about return shape, pagination, or grading detail. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a modest 3 is warranted.
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?
Two sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded before the parameter default. Efficient and readable, though it is quite terse.
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 single-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and the parameter default. It is complete enough to call correctly, with only minor gaps around return content.
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 the schema itself notes '(omit for all courses)'. The description restates this default behavior without adding format or type detail beyond the schema, so it earns the baseline 3.
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 grade data') scoped to the authenticated student, which distinguishes it from gradebook-wide siblings. It stops short of naming adjacent tools like explain_grade or get_my_submissions, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.
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 gives a useful conditional ('If course_id is omitted, returns grades across all enrolled courses'), which implies how to scope the call. However, it offers no when-to-use guidance against siblings such as explain_grade, project_grade, or get_my_submission_feedback.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.