Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-canvas-utem

mcp-canvas-utem

by k0ngan
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

canvas_download_pdf

Downloads a verified course PDF to the output folder and records its note in the Obsidian vault.

Instructions

Descarga un PDF verificado del curso a la carpeta de salida y deja su nota en el vault.

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": {
      "course_id": "<course_id>",
      "file_id": "<file_id>"
    },
    "name": "canvas_download_pdf"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dry_runNo
file_idYes
course_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the side effects: a file written to the output folder and a note written into the vault. It says nothing about overwrite behavior on repeat downloads, required permissions, or what makes a PDF 'verified'.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the action and both effects without filler. It is efficient but arguably too terse given the undocumented dry_run flag.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage leave a tool with real filesystem and vault side effects under-described. The description should at minimum explain dry_run and the file_id/course_id relationship.

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%, so all three parameters are undocumented in structured form, and the description does not compensate — course_id and file_id are never explained, and dry_run (a meaningful control on a tool that writes to disk and the vault) is left completely undefined.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource ('Descarga un PDF verificado del curso') plus the two destinations (output folder, vault note), so the agent knows exactly what the call produces. It does not distinguish itself from the close sibling canvas_download_course_files, which an agent could easily confuse with this one.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no statement of when to use this instead of canvas_download_course_files or the sync tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only implied guidance is that a 'verified' PDF must already exist, which the agent cannot act on.

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