Skip to main content
Glama
bruchris

Canvas LMS MCP Server

by bruchris
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Get Quiz Question Responses

get_quiz_question_responses
Read-only

Retrieve student responses to Classic Quiz questions, grouped by question, to grade essay or file-upload answers consistently across a class.

Instructions

Review every student's answer to one or all questions in a Classic Quiz, pivoted by question instead of by student — for grading essay/short-answer/file-upload questions consistently across a class instead of paging through SpeedGrader one student at a time. Classic Quizzes only (quiz_type: assignment, practice_quiz, graded_survey, survey) — New Quizzes exposes responses through a different API. Omit question_id to get every question; provide it to scope to one. Each question reports needs_manual_grading (true for essay and file-upload questions) and points_possible. Scans one Canvas API call per completed or pending-review submission; a failed per-submission fetch is recorded in submissions_failed rather than aborting the whole call. When CANVAS_PSEUDONYMIZE_STUDENTS is enabled, student names are replaced with stable pseudonyms.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
quiz_idYesThe Canvas quiz ID (Classic Quizzes only)
course_idYesThe Canvas course ID
question_idNoScope the result to a single question ID (from list_quiz_questions). Omit to return every question with every student's response.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.18.11
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  2. Addedv1.18.3

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond readOnlyHint, it discloses operational behavior: one Canvas API call per completed or pending-review submission, failures collected in submissions_failed rather than aborting, per-question needs_manual_grading/points_possible fields, and pseudonymization when CANVAS_PSEUDONYMIZE_STUDENTS is enabled. This is significant useful context not available in annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The narrative is longer than a one-liner, but every sentence earns its place: purpose, scope constraint, parameter behavior, response signals, failure handling, and pseudonymization. The main use case is front-loaded in the first sentence.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only tool with three simple parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers inputs, output signals, failure behavior, and environment-dependent behavior (pseudonyms). No critical information an agent needs to invoke or interpret the result is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already describes quiz_id, course_id, and question_id including the omit-for-all behavior. The description restates the question_id scoping and the Classic Quiz restriction, but does not add meaning beyond what the schema properties already carry; baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb ('review'), a precise resource (students' answers to Classic Quiz questions), and the distinguishing pivot ('by question instead of by student'). It also contrasts with SpeedGrader and New Quizzes, so an agent can identify what this tool does and how it differs from related quiz tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It says exactly when to use this tool: grading essay/short-answer/file-upload questions consistently across a class rather than paging through SpeedGrader. It also gives an explicit when-not: Classic Quizzes only, with a note that New Quizzes responses come through a different API.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools