get_new_quiz_itemRetrieve a specific question from a New Quiz in Canvas by providing course, assignment, and item IDs. Get exact question details for review or processing.
Get a single item (question) from a New Quiz (LTI) by item ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item_id | Yes | The New Quiz item ID (string, not numeric) | |
| course_id | Yes | The Canvas course ID | |
| assignment_id | Yes | The assignment ID of the New Quiz |
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, so the description does not need to restate safety behavior. It adds the New Quiz LTI scoping and single-item focus, but discloses no additional edge cases, error behavior, or response details.
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?
One clean, front-loaded sentence communicates the exact operation with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward getter tool.
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 read-only lookup with three fully documented required parameters, the description is largely sufficient. It could mention the relationship to list_new_quiz_items or clarify response content, but those are not essential for correct invocation.
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%, so each parameter is already documented. The description only reinforces that item_id identifies the specific item; it adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema.
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 states a precise verb and resource: retrieve a single New Quiz item by item ID. The word 'single' distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_new_quiz_items, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 phrase 'by item ID' implies the tool is for fetching one specific item, and the word 'single' suggests it is not for listing items. However, it never explicitly names an alternative such as list_new_quiz_items or states when to prefer one over the other.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.