list_group_membersRetrieve all members of a Canvas group by entering its group ID.
List all members of a group.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| group_id | Yes | The Canvas 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"v1.18.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. The phrase 'all members' adds a slight scoping detail, suggesting no filtering, but it does not describe pagination, ordering, member object shape, or whether nested groups are included. With annotations covering the read-only trait, this is adequate but not rich.
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 filler or redundant phrasing. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, making it an efficient definition.
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 fully documented parameter and a clear 'list members' purpose, the description is largely sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool. It does not detail the return shape, but that is a minor gap given the tool's low complexity and the supporting annotations.
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 only parameter, group_id, is already documented as 'The Canvas group ID.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 and resource: 'List all members of a group.' It clearly identifies the tool's function and naturally distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_groups or list_course_users. There is no ambiguity about what resource is being acted on.
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 intended use is implied by the phrasing 'List all members of a group'—an agent can infer it should be used when group membership data is needed. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over related tools such as list_course_users or list_groups, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.