list_account_coursesList courses under a given Canvas account.
List courses under a given Canvas account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account_id | Yes | The Canvas account ID | |
| search_term | No | Search courses by name or course code |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.18.15Input schema / properties / account_id / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+ "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "pattern": "^[1-9][0-9]{0,18}$",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / account_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 readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. Beyond restating the account scope, the description discloses nothing about pagination, ordering, whether sub-account courses are included, or result volume.
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 with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight editing of rich content.
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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the essentials are present. However, with no output schema and no statement on sub-account scope or pagination, an agent still has open questions before calling it.
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%, so account_id and search_term are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra semantics about ID formats or search behavior, making the baseline 3 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 pairs the verb 'List' with the resource 'courses' and adds an account scope, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not name the closely related sibling 'list_courses' or explain how the two differ, which keeps it from a 5.
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?
There is no guidance on when to pick this over alternatives such as list_courses, list_account_users, or list_sub_accounts, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.