list_peer_reviewsList all peer reviews for an assignment in a course.
List all peer reviews for an assignment in a course.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| course_id | Yes | The Canvas course ID | |
| assignment_id | Yes | The Canvas assignment ID |
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 no further behavioral context such as pagination behavior, permission requirements, or return shape; it mainly restates the purpose already conveyed by the title and annotations.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action, resource, and scope efficiently.
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 read-only list tool with two fully documented required parameters and annotations covering safety, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it. It lacks any note on return format or pagination, but no output schema exists and the operation is straightforward.
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%, so both course_id and assignment_id are fully documented in the schema. The description does not add syntax, format, or constraint details 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 states a specific verb (List) and resource (peer reviews) with a clear scope (for an assignment in a course). It is distinct from most siblings, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the close alternative get_submission_peer_reviews, so it falls short of a 5.
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 provides no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or named alternatives. It only implies the basic context from the tool's purpose, leaving the agent to infer when this tool should be chosen over get_submission_peer_reviews or other peer-review tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.