Skip to main content
Glama
bruchris

Canvas LMS MCP Server

by bruchris
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

List Submissions

list_submissions
Read-only

Retrieve assignment submissions with optional student, rubric, and submission history details. Filter by student, workflow state, or grading period to review specific submission sets.

Instructions

List all submissions for an assignment. Use include to attach user, assignment, rubric_assessment, submission_history, or visibility. Filter with student_ids, workflow_state, or grading_period_id. Defaults to including submission_comments.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
groupedNoReturn one submission per group rather than per student
includeNoExtra fields to include (Canvas include[] param). Defaults to ["submission_comments"] when omitted.
course_idYesThe Canvas course ID
section_idsNoRestrict to submissions in these sections
student_idsNoRestrict to submissions for these user IDs. Use "all" or "self" for shortcuts.
assignment_idYesThe Canvas assignment ID
workflow_stateNoOnly include submissions in this workflow state
grading_period_idNoRestrict to a grading period

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 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"
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.18.8
    • removedInput schema / properties / student_ids / items / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "number"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  }
-]
    • addedInput schema / properties / student_ids / items / type
      Added value: +[
+  "number",
+  "string"
+]
  3. First observedv1.18.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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. The description adds useful behavior beyond the annotations by stating that submission_comments are included by default, which is a meaningful expectation-setting detail.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences with no filler: the first states purpose, the second gives parameter guidance, and the third discloses the default. The most useful behavioral detail is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 the rich input schema, helpful annotations, and the straightforward nature of a listing operation, the description covers what an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly. It omits pagination or return-shape details, but the absence of an output schema is less critical for a read-only list operation with clear parameter documentation.

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 the schema already documents all eight parameters. The description adds only a high-level summary of include options and filters, and it repeats the default include behavior already present in the schema, so it does not materially increase semantic understanding.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'List all submissions for an assignment.' This clearly distinguishes it from single-submission tools like get_submission, though it does not explicitly name any sibling tool.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The intended use case (listing submissions for an assignment and optionally filtering them) is clear, and the filters imply bulk retrieval. However, the description does not explicitly differentiate this from list_submissions_awaiting_grading or get_submission, so an agent gets no routing guidance among closely 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