list_new_quiz_itemsRetrieve all question items from a New Quiz by supplying the course ID and assignment ID, enabling direct review of quiz contents in Canvas.
List all items (questions) in a New Quiz (LTI).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| course_id | Yes | The Canvas course ID | |
| assignment_id | Yes | The assignment ID of the New Quiz |
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 declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'New Quiz (LTI)' scope but does not describe pagination, ordering, or whether it returns full items or summaries. Given annotations cover the key behavioral trait (read-only), a 3 is appropriate for the limited additional context.
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, focused sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the verb and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to scan.
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 list tool with two required parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details on the return format, pagination, or any additional behavior. It is complete enough for basic invocation but could be more informative about what the response contains.
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% with both course_id and assignment_id described in the schema. The description does not add any parameter semantics 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 clearly states the verb (list) and resource (items/questions in a New Quiz), and explicitly mentions 'New Quiz (LTI)' which distinguishes it from classic quiz item tools like list_quiz_questions. It is specific and not a tautology of the name.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_quiz_questions or get_new_quiz_item. There is no mention of conditions, exclusions, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.