get_student_analyticsRetrieve a student's page views, participations, and submission timeline for a Canvas course to analyze engagement and learning patterns.
Get per-student activity analytics for a course. Returns page views, participations, and submission timeline for a specific student.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| course_id | Yes | The Canvas course ID | |
| student_id | Yes | The Canvas user ID of the student |
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 provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds which metrics are returned, which is helpful, but does not disclose potential surprises such as behavior when a student has no activity, the interpretation of 'participation', or time‑window semantics.
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?
Two efficient sentences with no filler. The first sentence anchors the purpose; the second enumerates the return contents. Nothing needs to be trimmed.
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, read-only tool with two clearly documented params and no output schema, the description does an adequate job of stating what is returned. It is largely complete; only edge-case or aggregation details are missing, which are minor given the tool's simplicity.
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 complete (100%), so both parameters already have descriptions. The description only loosely reinforces the existing 'course' and 'student' context without adding any new semantics that would raise the score above the baseline.
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 states the specific verb ('Get'), the resource ('per-student activity analytics for a course'), and the exact returned data ('page views, participations, and submission timeline'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling analytics tools like get_course_analytics and get_assignment_analytics by emphasizing the per-student scope.
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 usage context is implied by the 'per-student ... for a specific student' phrasing, so an agent can infer when to choose it. However, the description does not explicitly name alternative analytics tools or state when not to use them, which would make the routing unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.