List active student enrollments with per-course grades, including current and final scores, grades, and grading period details for a specified observee.
List active student enrollments with per-course grades (current_score, final_score, current_grade, final_grade, current grading period info).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| observeeId | No |
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, covering the safety and external-data profile. The description adds that only active enrollments are returned and enumerates the grade fields, which is useful context, but it omits pagination, ordering, and scope behavior.
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 that names the resource and the salient return fields with zero padding. It earns its place and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
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?
For a single-optional-param read tool, the coverage is minimal but workable: annotations carry safety, and the description discloses what is returned. However, it does not document the lone parameter or distinguish its enrollment scope from sibling list tools, leaving real gaps given the crowded sibling set.
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?
One parameter (observeeId) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. The description implies a list scoped to some student, but an agent cannot tell from either source what observeeId means or that it is the observability/parent-proxy identifier.
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 (list) and resource (active student enrollments) with extra detail on the returned grade fields. It does not differentiate itself from sibling list tools like canvas_list_observees or canvas_list_courses, leaving the agent to infer the enrollment-vs-observation distinction.
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 guidance and no named alternative. The description does not explain that this tool is for enrolled students' grades versus, say, canvas_list_observees or canvas_list_courses, so an agent deciding among the ~18 sibling list tools gets no routing help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.