grade_submissionPost or update a grade for a submission. Requires grading permissions.
Post or update a grade for a submission. Requires grading permissions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| grade | Yes | The grade to assign (e.g. "95", "A", "pass") | |
| user_id | Yes | The Canvas user ID | |
| course_id | Yes | The Canvas course ID | |
| assignment_id | Yes | The Canvas assignment ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.18.15Input schema / properties / assignment_id / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+ "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "pattern": "^[1-9][0-9]{0,18}$",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / assignment_id / typeRemoved value: -"number"Input schema / properties / course_id / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+ "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "pattern": "^[1-9][0-9]{0,18}$",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / course_id / typeRemoved value: -"number"Input schema / properties / user_id / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+ "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "pattern": "^[1-9][0-9]{0,18}$",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / user_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 idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds an auth requirement (grading permissions) and the upsert framing, which complements the idempotency hint, but it never warns that an existing grade is overwritten or whether notifications are triggered by the destructive write.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the prerequisite. No filler, though the extreme brevity edges toward under-specification rather than tight completeness.
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 destructive, idempotent write tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose and permissions but omits overwrite behavior, notification side effects, and routing against sibling grading tools. It is minimally adequate rather than complete.
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% and all four parameters carry their own descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format guidance for the grade string beyond what the schema already gives, and no clarification of how course/assignment/user IDs combine.
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 gives a specific verb pair and resource: 'Post or update a grade for a submission.' An agent can tell this is the grading write operation rather than a read (list_submissions_awaiting_grading) or a comment (comment_on_submission). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from adjacent write tools like submit_rubric_assessment or score_quiz_question.
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?
It states a prerequisite ('Requires grading permissions') and the upsert nature ('Post or update'), which implies use when a grade must be created or changed. However, it gives no when-not guidance and names no alternative, so the agent must infer that rubric- or quiz-based scoring goes through sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.