Retrieve your upcoming Canvas events for the next 7 days. See assignments, quizzes, and other due dates in a single curated view.
List the calling user's upcoming events (Canvas's curated next-7-days view).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation readOnlyHint=true already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context by specifying that the results are scoped to the calling user and that the view is 'curated' (Canvas's specific next-7-days filter), which goes beyond the annotation.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence ('List the calling user's upcoming events...') that conveys the action, resource, scope, and a clarifying qualifier. There is no wasted wording or unnecessary detail.
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 zero-parameter read-only tool, the description is sufficiently complete. It states what the tool returns and its scope, and with no output schema, the only ambiguity is the exact event fields returned, which is reasonable to omit for such a simple list tool. A brief mention of the return format could push it higher, but it is not essential.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, leaving nothing for the description to explain. The baseline of 4 is appropriate; the description simply reinforces the tool's purpose without needing to elaborate on inputs.
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?
The description clearly states the tool lists the calling user's upcoming events, with the specific qualifier 'Canvas's curated next-7-days view'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like canvas_list_calendar_events or canvas_list_planner_items by specifying a particular resource and time window.
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?
The description implies when to use the tool—when you need the curated next-7-days view of the user's events—but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.