get_outcomeGet the full details for a specific learning outcome by ID.
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.
v1.18.15Input schema / properties / outcome_id / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+ "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "pattern": "^[1-9][0-9]{0,18}$",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / outcome_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 safe-read profile is covered. Beyond that the description adds almost nothing: it says 'full details' but no output schema exists, so the actual return shape, whether 404s occur for bad IDs, or anything about the 'full' contents is left undisclosed.
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. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise given the omitted usage and return-value context.
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?
The tool is a simple two-parameter getter with full schema coverage and read annotations, so the core is covered. However, with no output schema the description should arguably characterize what 'full details' returns and how it differs from sibling outcome lookups, neither of which it does.
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 both parameters (outcome_id and add_defaults) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which is the correct baseline 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 ('Get'), resource ('learning outcome'), and scope modifier ('by ID'), so an agent immediately knows this is a single-item fetch. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the many sibling outcome tools (get_outcome_group, get_outcome_results, get_outcome_rollups), which an agent could easily confuse it with.
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 when-to-use guidance is given. With dozens of sibling outcome tools (get_outcome_alignments, get_outcome_results, get_outcome_mastery_distribution, list_outcome_group_outcomes), there is ample opportunity to state when this retrieval is appropriate versus those, and the description provides none.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.