Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Canvas LMS MCP Server

Canvas LMS MCP Server

by bruchris
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

List Outcome Group Links

list_outcome_group_links
Read-only

List every outcome link in an account or course context — the many-to-many join between outcome groups and the outcomes they contain, read from the context root, not one specific group.

Instructions

List every outcome link in an account or course context — the many-to-many join between outcome groups and the outcomes they contain, read from the context root, not one specific group. Fetches every page (100 per request) and fails with a 'Results are incomplete' error instead of silently truncating. Each link nests its outcome_group and outcome (full detail when outcome_style="full" / outcome_group_style="full", abbreviated otherwise); use list_outcome_group_outcomes instead to list only the outcomes linked directly under one specific outcome_group_id.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "context_type": "<context_type>",
      "context_id": "<context_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_outcome_group_links"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
context_idYesThe Canvas account ID or course ID for the context.
context_typeYesWhether to read outcome links from an account or course context.
outcome_styleNoOutcome detail level. Use "full" to include expanded outcome fields.
outcome_group_styleNoOutcome group detail level. Use "full" to include expanded outcome group fields.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.18.15
    • addedInput schema / properties / context_id / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+    "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+    "type": "integer"
+  },
+  {
+    "pattern": "^[1-9][0-9]{0,18}$",
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+]
    • removedInput schema / properties / context_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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint); the description adds pagination (100 per request), failure semantics ('Results are incomplete' instead of silent truncation), and nesting/style behavior. These are exactly the behavioral traits annotations cannot convey.

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?

Scope is front-loaded and each sentence carries distinct information (scope, pagination/failure, nesting, alternative tool). It is dense—the single parenthetical about styles is buried mid-sentence—but there is no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description supplies the critical return-shape facts (each link nests outcome_group and outcome, style-dependent detail) plus truncation behavior. It stops short of describing link-level fields or ordering, which a fuller definition with no output schema could have included.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value the schema lacks: it states that outcome_style/outcome_group_style control whether the nested outcome and outcome_group objects come back in full or abbreviated detail. It adds little for context_type/context_id beyond what the schema already documents.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb+resource with explicit scope: every outcome link in an account or course context, defined as the many-to-many join read from the context root rather than one group. This distinguishes it cleanly from list_outcome_group_outcomes and list_outcome_groups without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly routes the agent: use list_outcome_group_outcomes instead when only the outcomes linked directly under one specific outcome_group_id are needed. The 'context root vs one specific group' condition is a complete selection rule, with no inference required.

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