get_outcome_groupGet details for a specific outcome group in an account or course context.
Get details for a specific outcome group in an account or course context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| context_id | Yes | The Canvas account ID or course ID for the context. | |
| context_type | Yes | The outcome group context type. | |
| outcome_group_id | Yes | The Canvas outcome group ID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.18.15Input schema / properties / context_id / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+ "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "pattern": "^[1-9][0-9]{0,18}$",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / context_id / typeRemoved value: -"number"Input schema / properties / outcome_group_id / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+ "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "pattern": "^[1-9][0-9]{0,18}$",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / outcome_group_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 essentially nothing behavioral beyond the schema: no indication of what details are returned, whether missing groups error, or any permission requirements for account vs course contexts.
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 tight, though its brevity is partly the cause of the missing usage and behavioral detail rather than a sign of completeness.
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 read-only lookup with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the definition is minimally viable. Because no output schema exists, the description could reasonably indicate what 'details' are returned, which it does not.
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%, with each of the three required parameters (context_type enum, context_id, outcome_group_id) documented in the schema. The description only restates the account/course context split already encoded in the enum, so baseline 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?
Clear verb+resource ("Get details for a specific outcome group") with the added scoping note that it works in an account or course context. However, it does nothing to separate itself from close siblings such as get_root_outcome_group, list_outcome_groups, or get_outcome, so an agent must guess which one retrieves a single group by ID.
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, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The description never says to use this after list_outcome_groups or instead of get_root_outcome_group, leaving routing entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.