Skip to main content
Glama
bruchris

Canvas LMS MCP Server

by bruchris
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

List Files

list_files
Read-only

List all files in a course.

Instructions

List all files in a course.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
course_idYesThe Canvas course ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.18.15
    • addedInput schema / properties / course_id / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+    "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+    "type": "integer"
+  },
+  {
+    "pattern": "^[1-9][0-9]{0,18}$",
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+]
    • removedInput schema / properties / course_id / type
      Removed value: -"number"
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.18.11
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  3. First observedv1.18.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds only the course scoping and nothing about pagination, whether subfolders are included, or ordering — minimal value beyond the structured fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though it borders on under-specification for the tool's actual filtering behavior.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter read-only list tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the essentials are present. It still leaves the boundary with get_file/list_folders and return characteristics unstated, which is a clear but not severe gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single course_id parameter is documented as 'The Canvas course ID'. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (files) with a scoping qualifier (in a course), so the agent knows what it returns. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as list_folders, list_course_submission_files, or get_file, so the reader must infer the boundary.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance. The agent is given no condition that selects list_files over get_file or list_folders.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools