Retrieve a Canvas assignment's description, rubric, points, due dates, and late policy to grade submissions accurately.
Everything needed to grade an assignment: description, rubric, points, due dates and late policy.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| course_id | Yes | ||
| assignment_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully lists the assignment data included, but does not disclose permissions, error behavior, or whether the lookup is read-only beyond the implicit 'get' semantics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence that lists the included fields without filler. Every phrase contributes to understanding what the caller receives.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter getter with no output schema, the description adequately summarizes the returned content. However, it omits parameter guidance and any behavioral details needed when annotations and schema descriptions are absent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention course_id or assignment_id at all. The parameter names are fairly self-evident, but the description adds no semantic detail to compensate for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the resource and the useful content returned for grading: description, rubric, points, due dates, and late policy. It implies retrieving a single assignment, distinguishing it from list_assignments, but does not explicitly state the retrieval action or name the sibling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'needed to grade an assignment' hints at the context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus list_assignments, get_submission, or get_grading_guidelines. No prerequisites or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.