Skip to main content
Glama
bruchris

Canvas LMS MCP Server

by bruchris
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

List Outcome Group Outcomes

list_outcome_group_outcomes
Read-only

List the linked outcomes directly under a specific outcome group.

Instructions

List the linked outcomes directly under a specific outcome group.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
context_idYesThe Canvas account ID or course ID for the context.
context_typeYesThe outcome group context type.
outcome_styleNoOutcome detail level. Use "full" to include expanded outcome fields.
outcome_group_idYesThe Canvas outcome group ID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 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}$",
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+]
    • removedInput schema / properties / context_id / type
      Removed value: -"number"
    • addedInput schema / properties / outcome_group_id / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+    "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+    "type": "integer"
+  },
+  {
+    "pattern": "^[1-9][0-9]{0,18}$",
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+]
    • removedInput schema / properties / outcome_group_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

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does 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 nothing beyond that: no pagination behavior, no ordering, no statement of whether direct children only are truncated, and no note on how the result differs from the group-link listing.

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?

One tight sentence with zero filler and the scoping condition front-loaded. It is efficiently sized, though it is arguably terse enough that it gives up the chance to distinguish itself from siblings.

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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the essentials are present. But in a cluster of outcome-group listing tools, the missing distinction from list_outcome_group_links and list_outcome_group_subgroups leaves a real gap in what an agent needs to call the right tool.

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%, so context_type, context_id, outcome_group_id and outcome_style are all documented in the schema, including the meaning of 'full' vs 'abbrev'. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (linked outcomes) plus a scoping qualifier ('directly under a specific outcome group'). The adverb 'directly' hints at non-recursive listing, which is meaningful, but the description never names or contrasts with the very similar siblings list_outcome_group_links and list_outcome_group_subgroups.

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 and no alternative named. Given siblings list_outcome_group_links (links) and list_outcome_group_subgroups (subgroups) sit right next to this tool, the absence of any disambiguation forces the agent to infer the boundary between 'outcomes' and 'links'.

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