Skip to main content
Glama
bruchris

Canvas LMS MCP Server

by bruchris
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

List Quizzes

list_quizzes
Read-only

List all quizzes in a course.

Instructions

List all quizzes in a course.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
course_idYesThe Canvas course ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.18.15
    • addedInput schema / properties / course_id / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+    "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+    "type": "integer"
+  },
+  {
+    "pattern": "^[1-9][0-9]{0,18}$",
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+]
    • removedInput schema / properties / course_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, so the safety profile is covered structurally, and the description adds nothing on top of that — no pagination, ordering, or scope limits. It neither contradicts nor enriches the annotations.

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?

A single short sentence with zero waste and the resource front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the missing differentiation noted above.

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 simple read-only list tool with annotations covering safety and a fully documented single parameter, this is minimally adequate. The lack of output-schema explanation is excusable, but the classic-vs-New-Quizzes ambiguity in a sibling set full of 'new_quiz' tools is a real completeness gap.

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% with a single documented course_id parameter, so the schema carries the full parameter burden. The description adds no format or semantics beyond what the schema already states, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('List all quizzes') scoped to a course, which is clear. However, it gives no differentiation from the sibling new-quiz tools (create_new_quiz, list_new_quiz_items, get_new_quiz_item), leaving ambiguous whether this covers classic quizzes, New Quizzes, or both.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The only scoping signal is 'in a course', which merely restates the required course_id parameter rather than routing the agent among the many quiz-related siblings.

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