list_appointment_group_usersRetrieve the users who reserved a slot in a Canvas appointment group. Identify participants by providing the appointment group ID.
List participants (users) who have reserved a slot in an appointment group.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| appointment_group_id | Yes | The appointment group ID |
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"v1.18.4Does 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 the scoping detail 'who have reserved a slot,' which is useful, but it does not address pagination, count limits, or what happens if no reservations exist. With annotations carrying the main behavioral load, this is adequate.
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 zero filler. The resource, verb, and scoping detail are all included without waste.
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 read-only tool with one ID parameter, the description fully covers what the tool does and when it is relevant. No output schema exists, but a list of participants is an intuitive result, 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 description coverage is 100%, and the parameter description 'The appointment group ID' fully documents the argument. The tool description adds nothing semantically beyond repeating 'appointment group,' so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('participants/users who have reserved a slot in an appointment group'), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_appointment_groups and list_appointment_group_groups. An agent can understand exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.
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 usage is implied by the description: agent should call this when they need the participant list for an appointment group. However, it does not explicitly reference alternatives or give any when-not-to-use guidance, so the value beyond the obvious purpose is limited.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.