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

mcp-canvas-utem

by k0ngan
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

canvas_test_connection

Verifies Canvas authentication by checking the local cookie for a valid session; does not write to the vault.

Instructions

Comprueba la sesión de Canvas con la cookie local. No escribe en el vault.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "canvas_test_connection"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does add one genuinely useful trait: 'No escribe en el vault', which reassures the agent this is side-effect-free in a family of write-heavy sync tools. However, it omits what a failed check looks like, whether the cookie is refreshed or cached, and any auth prerequisite nuance beyond 'cookie local'.

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 short sentences, action first and safety constraint second, with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a zero-param, no-output-schema tool the description covers the what and the safety profile, but because there is no output schema it would help to say what a successful vs. failed check yields (boolean, session metadata, error). That gap matters for a diagnostic tool whose entire value is its result.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The mention of the local cookie correctly signals the implicit input source for a parameterless call.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Comprueba la sesión de Canvas') and specifies the mechanism ('con la cookie local'), so an agent can tell this is a session/credential check rather than a data-fetching or sync operation like the canvas_sync_* or canvas_list_* siblings. It stops short of an explicit differentiation statement against siblings, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: a sensible agent would infer this is a pre-flight check to run before sync or listing calls, but the description never states when to call it, when not to, or what to do on failure. No alternative tool is named.

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