Skip to main content
Glama

List Folders

list_folders
Read-only

List all folders in a course.

Instructions

List all folders 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 the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that – it doesn't disclose whether results are paginated, whether nested folders are flattened or hierarchical, or whether an empty course returns an empty list. No contradiction, but no added behavioral value.

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 short sentence with zero padding and the key scope front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably so terse that no supporting context is provided.

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 simple read-only list tool with annotations covering safety and a fully documented schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It omits return-shape hints (hierarchy, pagination) that would help an agent, so it is adequate but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so the single course_id parameter is already fully documented with type and pattern constraints. The phrase 'in a course' loosely maps to the parameter but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 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 (folders) plus scope (in a course), so an agent knows exactly what it returns. There is no competing folder-listing sibling, so differentiation is a non-issue. It falls short of 5 only because it adds no distinguishing detail beyond the name.

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 guidance, no mention of when this is preferred over file-oriented siblings like list_files, and no prerequisites. The agent must infer that this is the entry point for browsing course folder structure.

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