Add feedback comments to a student's Canvas submission without changing the grade. Preview the text first, then publish only after approval.
Post a feedback comment on a student's submission without changing the grade.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| confirm | No | false = preview only; true only after the user approves the text | |
| user_id | Yes | ||
| course_id | Yes | ||
| assignment_id | Yes | ||
| group_comment | No |
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 discloses one useful trait (grade is untouched) but omits the most consequential behavior: that confirm defaults to false and the call is preview-only until explicitly approved, as well as any statement about visibility, notification, or reversibility of a posted comment.
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 tight sentence with the scope constraint front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the coverage gaps elsewhere rather than earning credit for completeness.
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 6-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 17% schema coverage, this one sentence is not enough. The preview/confirm safety flow and the meaning of group_comment are left for the agent to infer, which is risky for a tool that publishes user-visible content.
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 only 17% – just the confirm parameter. The description adds no meaning for course_id, assignment_id, user_id, text, or group_comment; notably group_comment is an undocumented boolean/null flag with no explanation anywhere. With such low coverage the description should compensate but does not.
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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Post a feedback comment on a student's submission') and adds a scoping clause ('without changing the grade') that distinguishes it from the grading siblings like stage_grade. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it does not reach 5.
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 'without changing the grade' clause implies this is the non-grading alternative to the stage_grade/post_staged_grades flow, but no sibling is named and no when-not condition is given. The critical two-step preview/confirm workflow is never mentioned, so usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.