list_outcome_groupsList all outcome groups for an account or course context.
List all outcome groups for an account or course context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| context_id | Yes | The Canvas account ID or course ID for the context. | |
| context_type | Yes | Whether to read outcome groups from an account or course context. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.18.15Input schema / properties / context_id / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+ "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "pattern": "^[1-9][0-9]{0,18}$",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / context_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 nothing beyond that — no pagination behavior, no indication of whether all groups are returned flat or nested, no return shape. With annotations present the bar is lower, but this contributes essentially no extra 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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste; the scope qualifier sits right after the verb and resource. It is appropriately sized, though so terse that it leaves gaps rather than filling them.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description arguably should hint at the return shape (flat list vs. hierarchy) for an outcome-group listing. For a simple two-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, this is minimally adequate but not 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 coverage is 100% — both context_id and context_type carry their own descriptions and context_type has an enum. The description's mention of 'account or course context' merely echoes the enum rather than adding format or constraint detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb (list) and resource (outcome groups) plus the scoping dimension (account or course context). However, with siblings like get_root_outcome_group and get_outcome_group, it never distinguishes itself — an agent cannot tell why it would pick this over fetching the root group.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is named despite a dense cluster of outcome-group siblings (get_root_outcome_group, list_outcome_group_subgroups, list_outcome_group_links). The description leaves the routing decision entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.