get_outcomeRetrieve complete details for a specific learning outcome by its Canvas outcome ID, including optional mastery levels and colors.
Get the full details for a specific learning outcome by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| outcome_id | Yes | The Canvas outcome ID. | |
| add_defaults | No | Include default mastery colors and levels when Canvas supports it. |
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 and openWorldHint, so the description benefits from that safety context. It adds the behavioral promise of returning 'full details' rather than a summary, but does not describe response shape, empty-result behavior, or any other operational nuances.
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 that communicates the essential action and scope with no filler. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding.
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 get-by-ID tool with two well-documented parameters and read-only annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. The only gap is the absence of an output schema, which 'full details' only partially compensates for by hinting at a comprehensive return value.
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 the input schema already documents outcome_id and add_defaults. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond restating that lookup is by ID, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the action ('get'), the resource ('full details for a specific learning outcome'), and the key qualifier ('by ID'). It is distinct from list-style siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate from related get tools like get_outcome_group or get_outcome_results.
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 intended use is reasonably implied: use this when you have a specific outcome ID and need full details. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over outcome-group, outcome-alignment, or outcome-result tools, leaving routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.