Skip to main content
Glama
bruchris

Canvas LMS MCP Server

by bruchris
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Update Module

update_module
Destructive

Update an existing Canvas module by renaming it, changing its position, or toggling publication status. Provide the course ID and module ID to apply changes.

Instructions

Update an existing module (rename, reposition, publish/unpublish).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoNew name for the module
positionNoNew position in the module list
course_idYesThe Canvas course ID
module_idYesThe Canvas module ID
publishedNoWhether the module is published

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. First observedv1.18.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the mutating nature is covered. The description adds the specific fields that can be changed but does not disclose prerequisites, reversibility, or side effects on module items. It provides moderate context beyond annotations.

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?

The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and efficiently lists the updateable aspects. No wasted words.

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 straightforward update tool with full schema coverage and destructive annotations, the description is sufficient. It does not cover potential edge cases like position conflicts or permission requirements, but these are not critical for basic invocation. It is complete enough for typical use.

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 all parameters are already documented. The description's mention of rename, reposition, and publish/unpublish aligns with existing parameter descriptions but adds no additional semantic meaning or constraints beyond the schema.

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?

The description clearly states the tool updates an existing module and lists specific operations: rename, reposition, publish/unpublish. It distinguishes itself from creation or listing tools by specifying 'existing module'.

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 description implies usage for updating existing modules but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like create_module or list_modules. It lacks any when/when-not context.

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