Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Canvas LMS MCP Server

Canvas LMS MCP Server

by bruchris
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Remove Group Member

remove_group_member
DestructiveIdempotent

Remove a user from a group. The user stays enrolled in the course. Reverse with add_group_member.

Instructions

Remove a user from a group. The user stays enrolled in the course. Reverse with add_group_member.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "group_id": "<group_id>",
      "user_id": "<user_id>"
    },
    "name": "remove_group_member"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
user_idYesThe Canvas user ID to remove
group_idYesThe Canvas group ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.18.19

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add genuinely useful scope context — the user remains enrolled in the course — and the reversal path, but says nothing about error behavior for non-members or permission requirements, which matters for a destructive tool.

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?

Two short sentences, effect stated first, reversal second. No filler; every clause carries information.

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?

For a two-parameter destructive tool with full annotations and no output schema, the description covers effect scope and reversibility. Only the edge-case behavior (removing a user who isn't a member) is left unstated.

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% and both parameters (user_id, group_id) are documented inline, so the description adds nothing beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb + resource ("Remove a user from a group") plus a scope clarification that no sibling covers. It is immediately distinguishable from remove_enrollment and add_group_member.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

"The user stays enrolled in the course" delineates this from course-level enrollment removal, and "Reverse with add_group_member" names the counter-operation explicitly. It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use rule or prerequisite (e.g., must the user already be a member?).

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