Skip to main content
Glama
bruchris

Canvas LMS MCP Server

by bruchris
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

List Groups

list_groups
Read-only

List all groups in a course.

Instructions

List all groups 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

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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 without description help. The description adds only the course-scoped qualifier and says nothing about pagination, ordering, or whether inactive groups are included — with annotations carrying the load, a 3 is fair.

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 well-formed sentence with the scope front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though so terse that it sacrifices disambiguation for brevity.

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 no output schema, the definition is minimally sufficient, but it leaves the agent guessing which group taxonomy it returns given the crowded sibling set of group-related tools.

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%; course_id is fully documented in the schema as 'The Canvas course ID'. The description adds nothing beyond the schema (only implying course scoping), so the 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?

Clear verb+resource: 'List all groups in a course' tells the agent exactly what is returned and the scoping entity. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the many other group-listing siblings (list_outcome_groups, list_assignment_groups, list_appointment_group_groups, list_group_members), leaving ambiguity about which flavor of 'group' this returns.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, no prerequisites stated. The description only asserts what the tool does, never why or when an agent should pick it over list_outcome_groups or list_group_members.

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