list_filesRetrieve all files uploaded to a Canvas course by providing its course ID. Access course materials and attachments for review or further processing.
List all files in a course.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| course_id | Yes | The Canvas course 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"v1.18.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations cover safety and scope. The description adds only that it lists files in a course, which is already implied by the name. It does not disclose behavior such as pagination, file ordering, or what file fields are returned, though for a simple listing tool this is a modest gap.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded, no extraneous content. Perfectly 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?
For a simple list operation with one parameter and readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description is adequate. It states the resource, scope, and action. It doesn't mention output format, but the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of listing files in a course makes that less critical.
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%, with course_id described as 'The Canvas course ID'. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but doesn't exceed it.
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 resource ('files') scoped to a course, making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It distinguishes itself from file-related siblings like upload_file, delete_file, and list_folders by stating what it returns. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from other list-type tools, though the resource is 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 states what the tool does but gives no guidance about when to use it instead of alternatives. There are many sibling tools (e.g., list_folders, upload_file, delete_file) and no mention of exclusions or conditions. An agent must infer that this is the right tool for listing files, which is obvious from the name, but no context about prerequisites or related tools is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.