Canvas MCP

get_assignment_context

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch an assignment's details, rubric, submission status, and syllabus together. Use it before preparing an assignment or verifying submission.

Instructions

Read one assignment, rubric, current submission status and syllabus together. Use this before helping prepare an assignment or checking whether it is submitted.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "courseId": "<courseId>",
      "assignmentId": "<assignmentId>"
    },
    "name": "get_assignment_context"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`courseId`	Yes
`assignmentId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Oct 1, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior context beyond that: it is a composite read that aggregates four distinct resources in one call, which the annotations do not convey.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by when to use it. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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?

The description enumerates the aggregated return contents (assignment, rubric, submission status, syllabus), which substitutes well for the missing output schema. The remaining gap is parameter meaning, which is a schema-side deficiency rather than something the description ignores.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for both required parameters (courseId, assignmentId), and the description does not explain their format or the numeric-ID pattern. "Read one assignment" hints that a single assignment identifier is needed, but neither parameter is clarified, leaving the schema to do work it does not do.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb (Read) and resource bundle (assignment, rubric, submission status, syllabus), which distinguishes it from single-resource siblings like get_syllabus and get_course_work_status. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly name which sibling to use instead.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"Use this before helping prepare an assignment or checking whether it is submitted" gives concrete triggering contexts. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives, but the intended scenarios are unambiguous.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server