Retrieve students' submissions for a Canvas assignment, including status, lateness, and current score, and filter by needs_grading, late, missing, or graded.
Students' submissions for an assignment with status, lateness and current score.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filter | No | needs_grading | |
| 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 supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It never states that this is a read-only operation, whether results are paginated or scoped by role, or that the default filter silently limits output to ungraded work — a meaningful behavioral gap for a grading workflow.
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 with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately short, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than efficiency.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, 0% parameter coverage, and an enum of seven mutually exclusive filter values, the definition leaves critical call-time decisions unexplained. It should at minimum document the filter values and the default's effect.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the seven filter enum values, the needs_grading default, or the meaning of course_id/assignment_id beyond their names. It mentions 'status' and 'lateness' loosely, but this does not compensate for three undocumented parameters.
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 names the resource (submissions for an assignment) and what it returns (status, lateness, current score), which is enough to separate it from the singular get_submission sibling. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb statement, but the intent (listing) is unambiguous.
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?
There is no indication of when to use this versus get_submission, list_staged, or list_assignments, and no mention of the default filter (needs_grading) that governs which submissions come back. The agent must infer all routing decisions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.