Skip to main content
Glama
bruchris

Canvas LMS MCP Server

by bruchris
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Submit Rubric Assessment

submit_rubric_assessment
DestructiveIdempotent

Submit a rubric assessment with scores and comments for each criterion.

Instructions

Submit a rubric assessment with scores and comments for each criterion.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesArray of criterion assessments
course_idYesThe Canvas course ID
association_idYesThe rubric association ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv1.18.15
    • addedInput schema / properties / association_id / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+    "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+    "type": "integer"
+  },
+  {
+    "pattern": "^[1-9][0-9]{0,18}$",
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+]
    • removedInput schema / properties / association_id / type
      Removed value: -"number"
    • addedInput schema / properties / course_id / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+    "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+    "type": "integer"
+  },
+  {
+    "pattern": "^[1-9][0-9]{0,18}$",
+    "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 destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds nothing about what is destructive (does resubmitting overwrite an existing assessment?) or that the operation is repeatable. The combination of destructive + idempotent is exactly the behavior an agent most needs spelled out, and it is left unexplained.

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 efficient sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though arguably it errs toward under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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 low-complexity, 3-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is minimally adequate. It nonetheless leaves the mutation semantics (overwrite behavior, effect on the associated submission's grade) unstated, which matters for a destructive write.

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 course_id, association_id, and the nested criteria array all documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the criterion-level score/comment intent but adds no syntax, format, or identity semantics (e.g., what association_id references) beyond the schema.

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 verb (submit) and resource (rubric assessment) and clarifies it carries scores and comments per criterion, which distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings like get_rubric_assessment or list_rubrics. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with create_rubric or attach_rubric, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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, no prerequisites (e.g., a rubric must already be attached via attach_rubric), and no mention of alternatives such as grade_submission or create_rubric. The agent is given the action but not the context that selects it.

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