list_gradebook_history_daysList the dates in a course gradebook history that contain grading activity, grouped by grader and assignment.
List the dates in a course gradebook history that contain grading activity, grouped by grader and assignment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| course_id | Yes | The Canvas course ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.18.15Input schema / properties / course_id / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+ "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "pattern": "^[1-9][0-9]{0,18}$",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / course_id / typeRemoved value: -"number"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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some content context by saying the dates contain grading activity and are grouped by grader and assignment, but it provides no behavioral details about pagination, permissions, or return format beyond that.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every clause contributes to the purpose, including the grouping detail.
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 one-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it identifies the resource, scope, and grouping. It could be more explicit about the return structure or usage conditions, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.
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%: course_id is fully documented as 'The Canvas course ID'. The description adds no parameter syntax or constraints beyond what the schema already provides, 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?
The description states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('dates in a course gradebook history that contain grading activity'), with the added grouping detail. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like get_gradebook_history_day or list_gradebook_history_submissions, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_gradebook_history_day for a single date. The context ('in a course gradebook history') implies usage but does not guide selection among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.