get_root_outcome_groupGet the root outcome group for an account or course context.
Get the root outcome group for 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 | Whether to read outcomes from an account or course context. |
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"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 the account/course scoping context but discloses nothing about return shape, nesting depth, or whether a missing root is possible.
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 waste. The resource and its context scope come first, which is exactly what an agent needs to route the call.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining the return value, yet it says nothing about what a root outcome group contains or its structure. For a simple two-param read tool this is adequate but leaves a clear gap.
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 coverage is 100% and both parameters carry descriptions and an enum, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates the account/course context but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides.
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 (root outcome group) scoped to an account or course context. The qualifier 'root' meaningfully distinguishes it from get_outcome_group and list_outcome_groups, though it never names those siblings explicitly.
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?
Usage is implied by naming the two context types, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no contrast with get_outcome_group, and no prerequisites stated. The agent must infer that this returns the top-level group rather than a specific one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.