list_accountsRetrieve all Canvas LMS accounts accessible to your user session, enabling admin oversight and multi-account management from any AI agent.
List all accounts accessible to the authenticated user.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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?
The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a safe read operation. The description adds the user-scoping detail but gives no information about pagination, ordering, or the shape of the returned account list. The bar is lowered by the annotations, so a 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 one short sentence, front-loads the verb 'List' and the resource 'accounts', and contains no filler or repetition.
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 no-parameter read-only list operation, the description captures the essential information: resource, verb, and access scope. It does not describe return format or pagination, but the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the operation make this acceptable.
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?
The tool takes no parametersalert, and the input schema is an empty object, so there are no parameter details needing elaboration. The description adds no parameter semantics, but the absence of parameters makes this acceptable.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('accounts'), and scopes it to 'accessible to the authenticated user'. This makes the tool's purpose immediately unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_courses and list_sub_accounts.
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 phrase 'accessible to the authenticated user' gives clear context for when this tool applies. It does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as list_sub_accounts, but the intended use case is evident enough for a single-purpose list endpoint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.