Skip to main content
Glama
mcp-canvas-utem
by k0ngan

canvas_list_course_assignments

Lists all assignments for a Canvas course with submission status, then writes their grades into an Obsidian vault for review.

Instructions

Lista todas las tareas de un curso con estado de envío y escribe sus notas 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>"
    },
    "name": "canvas_list_course_assignments"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dry_runNo
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, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the most important non-obvious trait: despite the 'list' name, it has a persistent side effect (writing grades into the vault). It stops short of stating whether existing vault notes are overwritten, whether the write requires credentials, or how failures affect the listing half of the operation.

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?

One sentence with zero filler, and the listing purpose is front-loaded before the side effect. The mixed language relative to the English name and siblings is a minor friction for matching, but the sentence itself is efficient.

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?

This is a read-plus-write tool with no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters. The description omits the dry_run behavior, what exactly gets written, and where in the vault it lands, which leaves real gaps for a tool with a persistent effect.

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 the description must compensate, and it does not. The presence of dry_run strongly implies a way to suppress the vault write, but the description never explains it, nor does it clarify what course_id refers to beyond the name.

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 specific verb and resource ('Lista todas las tareas de un curso') and adds two non-obvious qualifiers: submission status is included and grades are written to the vault. This distinguishes it from siblings like canvas_list_active_tasks or canvas_course_inventory without naming them explicitly.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this over canvas_sync_course, canvas_list_active_tasks, or canvas_course_updates. Neither is the critical dry_run escape hatch mentioned, so an agent cannot infer how to preview without triggering the vault write.

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