get_new_quiz_itemGet a single item (question) from a New Quiz (LTI) by item ID.
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.
v1.18.15Input schema / properties / assignment_id / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+ "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "pattern": "^[1-9][0-9]{0,18}$",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / assignment_id / typeRemoved value: -"number"Input schema / properties / course_id / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+ "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "pattern": "^[1-9][0-9]{0,18}$",
+ "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 by structured data. The description adds only that the item belongs to an LTI New Quiz, and says nothing about permissions, error behavior, or what the returned item contains.
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 filler or redundancy. It is efficiently structured, though its brevity comes at the cost of content rather than being a virtue of tight writing.
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 getter with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is minimally sufficient. With no output schema, it could have said something about the returned question structure, but that gap is modest for a trivial fetch tool.
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 all three parameters (course_id, assignment_id, item_id) are already documented, including the note that item_id is a string rather than numeric. The description's 'by item ID' restates the schema rather than adding meaning.
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 (get) and resource (a single item/question from a New Quiz LTI), and 'single' implicitly contrasts with the plural list_new_quiz_items sibling. It never names an alternative tool explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.
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, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as list_new_quiz_items or get_quiz_question. The only hint is the word 'single', which implies retrieval of one item rather than a collection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.