Skip to main content
Glama
bruchris

Canvas LMS MCP Server

by bruchris
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Get Syllabus

get_syllabus
Read-only

Get the syllabus HTML body for a course.

Instructions

Get the syllabus HTML body for a course.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
course_idYesThe Canvas course ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.18.15
    • 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"
  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

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does 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 return-format detail ('HTML body'), which is valuable given there is no output schema, but says nothing about behavior when a course has no syllabus or about permissions.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every word (verb, resource, scope, return format) earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple one-parameter read tool whose annotations cover the safety profile and whose schema fully documents the parameter, the description is essentially complete and even notes the HTML return format. Only the empty/absent-syllabus behavior is unaddressed.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single course_id parameter is already documented as 'The Canvas course ID' in the schema. The description adds no format, range, or identifier-source detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb (get) and resource (syllabus) scoped to a course, and adds the useful detail that the payload is an HTML body. It is distinguishable from generic siblings like get_course or get_page, though it does not explicitly name an alternative to route against.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternative. With many sibling retrieval tools (get_course, get_page, get_course_structure), the agent is left to infer that this is the syllabus-specific fetcher.

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