Skip to main content
Glama
bruchris

Canvas LMS MCP Server

by bruchris
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Update Discussion

update_discussion
Destructive

Modify an existing Canvas discussion by changing its title, message, publish status, or schedule, and adjust settings like requiring initial posts or converting to an announcement.

Instructions

Update an existing discussion topic.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleNoNew title for the discussion topic
messageNoNew body text (supports HTML)
topic_idYesThe Canvas discussion topic ID
course_idYesThe Canvas course ID
publishedNoPublish or unpublish the topic
delayed_post_atNoISO 8601 datetime to schedule the topic for future posting
is_announcementNoWhen true, requests marking the topic as an announcement. Canvas silently downgrades this to a plain discussion topic (no error) if the caller lacks announcement permission in the course — check the response's own `is_announcement` field rather than assuming the request was honored.
require_initial_postNoRequire students to post before seeing replies

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.18.11
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.18.8
    • changedInput schema / properties / delayed_post_at / pattern
      Previous value: -"^(?:(?:\\d\\d[2468][048]|\\d\\d[13579][26]|\\d\\d0[48]|[02468][048]00|[13579][26]00)-02-29|\\d{4}-(?:(?:0[13578]|1[02])-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|3[01])|(?:0[469]|11)-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|30)|(?:02)-(?:0[1-9]|1\\d|2[0-8])))T(?:(?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d(?::[0-5]\\d(?:\\.\\d+)?)?(?:Z))$"New value: +"^(?:(?:\\d\\d[2468][048]|\\d\\d[13579][26]|\\d\\d0[48]|[02468][048]00|[13579][26]00)-02-29|\\d{4}-(?:(?:0[13578]|1[02])-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|3[01])|(?:0[469]|11)-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|30)|(?:02)-(?:0[1-9]|1\\d|2[0-8])))T(?:(?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d:[0-5]\\d(?:\\.\\d+)?(?:Z))$"
  3. Changed1 schema field changedv1.18.4
    • changedInput schema / properties / is_announcement / description
      Previous value: -"When true, marks the topic as an announcement"New value: +"When true, requests marking the topic as an announcement. Canvas silently downgrades this to a plain discussion topic (no error) if the caller lacks announcement permission in the course — check the response's own `is_announcement` field rather than assuming the request was honored."
  4. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.18.3
    • addedInput schema / properties / delayed_post_at
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "ISO 8601 datetime to schedule the topic for future posting",
+  "format": "date-time",
+  "pattern": "^(?:(?:\\d\\d[2468][048]|\\d\\d[13579][26]|\\d\\d0[48]|[02468][048]00|[13579][26]00)-02-29|\\d{4}-(?:(?:0[13578]|1[02])-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|3[01])|(?:0[469]|11)-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|30)|(?:02)-(?:0[1-9]|1\\d|2[0-8])))T(?:(?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d(?::[0-5]\\d(?:\\.\\d+)?)?(?:Z))$",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / is_announcement
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "When true, marks the topic as an announcement",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  5. First observedv1.18.0

TDQS

C2.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations include destructiveHint: true and openWorldHint: true, but the description adds no behavioral context. It does not explain what destructive means (e.g., irreversible changes), side effects, permission requirements, or how the response behaves. The description provides no value beyond the annotation hints.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single sentence with no waste, but it is under-specified to the point of being nearly a tautology. It is appropriately short but lacks any structural elements like examples or caveats. It states the core purpose but nothing more, which is acceptable for conciseness but not for usefulness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 8 parameters, 2 required, no output schema, and annotations hinting at destructive behavior and open-world effects, the description is woefully incomplete. It offers no context about the typical use case, important nuances (e.g., the is_announcement downgrade behavior captured in the schema), or how to handle the destructive nature. An agent cannot rely on the description to make informed decisions.

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 parameters adequately. The description adds no parameter-level information. Per the baseline rule, a score of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the burden.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states a clear verb ('Update') and resource ('existing discussion topic'), but it is essentially a restatement of the name and title. It distinguishes from creation by the word 'existing' but offers no specifics about which fields or behaviors are involved, nor does it differentiate from siblings like post_discussion_entry or delete_discussion.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, permissions, or scenarios where update_discussion is appropriate compared to create_discussion, delete_discussion, or post_discussion_entry. The agent must infer usage entirely from the schema.

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