get_submission_peer_reviewsRetrieve peer reviews assigned to a submission. Provide the course, assignment, and submission IDs to get the review list.
List peer reviews assigned to a specific submission.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| course_id | Yes | The Canvas course ID | |
| assignment_id | Yes | The Canvas assignment ID | |
| submission_id | Yes | The Canvas submission ID |
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 declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile and external mutability. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., what the list contains, response behavior), but it is consistent with the annotations, so no contradiction and no penalty beyond a middle score.
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 states the purpose with zero fluff, which suits a simple read-only tool. It is appropriately sized, though the extreme brevity forfeits some opportunity to disambiguate from siblings within the description.
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 list tool with a fully documented, 3-parameter schema and complete annotation, the necessary calling information is present. However, the absence of any mention of the related list_peer_reviews tool leaves a completeness gap in the selection context for the agent.
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 Canvas IDs already described meaningfully. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema 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.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource ('List peer reviews assigned to a specific submission') and the 'specific submission' scope clarifies what the tool targets. However, it does not directly differentiate from the near-named sibling list_peer_reviews, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.
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 description gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not compare against the closely related sibling list_peer_reviews. An agent must guess whether this tool or list_peer_reviews fits a given request.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.