List active Canvas courses with grades, total scores, current grading periods, and terms for a student or parent observer.
List active Canvas courses (with course-level grades, total scores, current grading period scores, and term).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| observeeId | No | Observed student's user ID; omit for self. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v1.2.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful content detail (grades, total scores, grading period scores, term) but says nothing about pagination, scope limits, or whether inactive/completed courses are excluded — 'active' is asserted without definition.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical enumerates return contents efficiently. Slightly dense but every clause carries information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description usefully previews the returned fields, which is the main thing it owes the agent. It still omits pagination/result-size behavior and the meaning of 'active', leaving a real gap for a list endpoint.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only one parameter (observeeId) and the schema description covers it 100%, including the 'omit for self' default. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('List active Canvas courses') and enumerates the payload (course-level grades, total scores, current grading period scores, term). An agent can distinguish it from the singular canvas_get_course, though the description never names that sibling explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It doesn't explain the relationship to canvas_get_course (single course), canvas_list_enrollments, or canvas_list_observees, so the agent must infer selection from names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.