list_module_itemsList all items inside a specific Canvas module by providing course ID and module ID. Quickly retrieve module content structure for navigation or review.
List all items within a module.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| course_id | Yes | The Canvas course ID | |
| module_id | Yes | The Canvas module 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?
Annotations already convey readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the literal operation—no mention of pagination, sorting, filtering, or whether sub-items are included. It does not contradict annotations but also does not enrich the agent's understanding of the tool's behavior.
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 'List all items within a module.' It is appropriately concise and contains no fluff. It loses a point for not adding any helpful clarifying details, but it is not bloated.
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?
Given the simplicity of the operation, the two-parameter schema, and the existing annotations for read-only behavior, the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks guidance on pagination, item types returned, or how this relates to the broader module-related toolset, leaving some gaps for an agent deciding whether this tool fits.
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?
Both parameters are covered by the input schema with clear names (course_id, module_id) and the schema description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to repeat parameter details. Baseline 3 applies because no additional semantic context is provided beyond the schema.
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 'List all items within a module' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating a read-only listing operation. It is distinguishable from siblings like `create_module_item` and `list_modules`, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with those alternatives.
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 description provides no guidance on when this tool should be preferred over related tools such as `list_modules` or `get_course_structure`. An agent must infer the appropriate usage context from the name and parameters alone, with no explicit selection criteria or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.