list_account_coursesList courses in a Canvas account, with optional search by name or course code to locate specific courses.
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.
v1.18.11Input 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 the description does not need to repeat that. It adds the scoping detail that this is account-level listing, which is useful. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as pagination, result ordering, or potential rate limits. Given annotations cover the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence that is immediately understandable. It avoids extraneous details and is front-loaded with the core action and scope, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
Given the low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema) and annotations that cover the read-only nature, the description is mostly sufficient. It clearly states the purpose and the parameters are documented in the schema. It could optionally mention that it returns a list of all courses under the account or note pagination, but for a simple list tool, this is a minor gap.
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 both parameters (account_id and search_term) already documented. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it does not clarify parameter formats or provide examples. Per the rubric, a high schema coverage warrants a baseline of 3, which is maintained.
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 clearly states the verb (List), the resource (courses), and the scope (under a given Canvas account). It effectively differentiates from sibling tools like list_courses by specifying the account context, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or direct users to other tools (e.g., list_courses for user-centric queries). The context is implied only by the name and description, which may not be sufficient for an agent to choose correctly among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.