get_my_submissionsList all submissions for the authenticated student in a course.
List all submissions for the authenticated student in a course.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are scoped to the authenticated student, which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about pagination, filtering, or result shape.
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 no wasted words. It is efficient, though it is arguably under-specified rather than optimally dense.
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 self-scoped read tool with annotations covering safety and a fully documented parameter, the description is minimally sufficient. It leaves the return contents and any pagination behavior (no output schema exists to cover them) unexplained.
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 coverage is 100%, and the single course_id parameter is fully documented in the schema as 'The Canvas course ID'. The description's phrase 'in a course' merely echoes this; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 (List), resource (submissions), and scope (for the authenticated student in a course). This clearly separates it from the sibling list_submissions, which is course-wide rather than self-scoped. It stops short of naming the sibling explicitly, but an agent can still tell them apart.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The 'authenticated student' scope implies a self-service view, but with close siblings like list_submissions, get_missing_submissions, and get_my_submission_feedback, the description does not route the agent between them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.