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

mcp-canvas-utem

by k0ngan
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

canvas_vault_status

Reports where the server writes, which archetypes it handles, and which course folders it detects in the Obsidian vault.

Instructions

Muestra dónde escribe el servidor, qué arquetipos maneja y qué carpetas de curso detecta 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_vault_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose the three categories of information returned (write location, archetypes, course folders), which is meaningful, but it never states that the call is read-only, has no side effects, or what the response looks like.

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 listing the three reported items with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter status tool.

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?

For a zero-param inspection tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent the categories of information that come back, which is largely sufficient. Only the read-only nature and response shape remain implicit.

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 applies. No misleading hints about inputs are given.

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 verb "Muestra" (shows) is paired with a concrete enumeration of what it reports: server write location, handled archetypes, and detected course folders in the vault. An agent can grasp it is a diagnostic/status tool, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with canvas_test_connection or canvas_course_inventory, whose territory partially overlaps.

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?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives among the many siblings. The agent must infer that this is a pre-flight/config inspection step from the name alone.

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