list_account_notificationsRetrieve active institution-wide announcements for a Canvas account to view maintenance windows, term deadlines, and policy notices.
List active global institution-wide announcements for the current user (maintenance windows, term deadlines, policy notices).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account_id | No | Canvas account ID, or "self" for the root account (default: "self") |
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"v1.18.2Does 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 useful scope qualifiers ('active', 'global', 'for the current user') but does not disclose pagination, ordering, or result-shape behavior. This is adequate for a simple read-only list.
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 conveys purpose, scope, and content examples with no redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, read-only, no output schema), the description is sufficiently complete for correct invocation. It could mention pagination or result details, but the scope and parameter are clear, and the annotations cover the read-only behavior.
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 coverage is 100%: the single optional `account_id` is fully described with its `'self'` default. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but with full schema coverage the baseline 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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('active global institution-wide announcements for the current user'), with useful content examples. It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling `view_account_notifications`, leaving some potential ambiguity.
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 clearly conveys it is for retrieving the current user's active institution-wide announcements, which gives the agent a clear context for use. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the scope qualifiers make the intended usage evident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.