Skip to main content
Glama
bruchris

Canvas LMS MCP Server

by bruchris
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Get Submission Peer Reviews

get_submission_peer_reviews
Read-only

Retrieves all peer reviews assigned to a single submission, returning each review's id, reviewer, reviewee, asset, and workflow state. Use it to inspect who was assigned or completed reviews for one submission.

Instructions

List the peer reviews assigned to one submission within an assignment — a single submission can have more than one assigned reviewer — returning each review's id, assessor_id (the reviewer), user_id (the reviewee), asset_id, and workflow_state ('assigned' or 'completed'). Fetches every page (100 per request) and fails with a 'Results are incomplete' error instead of silently truncating. Use list_peer_reviews instead to see every review assigned across the whole assignment rather than one submission, create_peer_review to assign another reviewer to this submission, and delete_peer_review to remove one.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
course_idYesThe Canvas course ID
assignment_idYesThe Canvas assignment ID
submission_idYesThe Canvas submission ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed6 schema fields changedv1.18.15
    • addedInput schema / properties / assignment_id / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+    "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+    "type": "integer"
+  },
+  {
+    "pattern": "^[1-9][0-9]{0,18}$",
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+]
    • removedInput schema / properties / assignment_id / type
      Removed value: -"number"
    • addedInput schema / properties / course_id / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+    "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+    "type": "integer"
+  },
+  {
+    "pattern": "^[1-9][0-9]{0,18}$",
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+]
    • removedInput schema / properties / course_id / type
      Removed value: -"number"
    • addedInput schema / properties / submission_id / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+    "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+    "type": "integer"
+  },
+  {
+    "pattern": "^[1-9][0-9]{0,18}$",
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+]
    • removedInput schema / properties / submission_id / type
      Removed value: -"number"
  2. 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"
  3. First observedv1.18.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly and openWorld, and the description adds important behavior beyond that: it fetches every page at 100 per request and fails with 'Results are incomplete' rather than truncating silently. It also documents the returned review fields and workflow states.

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 description is front-loaded with purpose and scope, then adds pagination/failure behavior and sibling alternatives. Every sentence contributes useful selection or invocation context, with no wasted text.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return fields an agent needs. It also covers pagination behavior, failure mode, and alternative tools, leaving no major gap for correct invocation.

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 all three parameters are documented in the schema as course, assignment, and submission IDs. The description adds scope context but does not add syntax or format meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: list peer reviews assigned to one submission within an assignment. It also distinguishes the tool from list_peer_reviews by scope, making the distinction clear without opening sibling schemas.

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 explicitly says to use this tool for one submission and names the alternative list_peer_reviews for reviews across the whole assignment. It also routes create_peer_review and delete_peer_review to their appropriate actions.

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