list_new_quiz_itemsList all items (questions) in a New Quiz (LTI).
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.
v1.18.15Input schema / properties / assignment_id / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+ "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "pattern": "^[1-9][0-9]{0,18}$",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / assignment_id / typeRemoved value: -"number"Input schema / properties / course_id / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+ "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "pattern": "^[1-9][0-9]{0,18}$",
+ "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 essentially nothing beyond that and the 'LTI' tag — no pagination, no scope, no note on what 'items' includes — so it contributes little behavioral 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?
A single tight sentence with zero waste and the purpose front-loaded. It is arguably terse to the point of being under-specified, but as structure it is clean.
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 read-only, fully-schema-covered list tool with annotations, the essentials are present. However, with no output schema the description could reasonably say more about what is returned (e.g., pagination or item shape), leaving it only minimally complete.
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 both required parameters (course_id, assignment_id) are documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema for either parameter.
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?
Clear verb (List) plus resource (items/questions in a New Quiz), and the parenthetical clarifies the Quiz-vs-item terminology. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the neighboring list_quiz_questions (classic quizzes) or get_new_quiz_item, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives such as list_quiz_questions or get_new_quiz_item. An agent gets no help choosing between the many new-quiz and quiz-question tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.