Canvas MCP

get-assignment-feedback

Retrieve instructor feedback for a specific assignment by providing the course ID and assignment ID.

Instructions

Haal de feedback van de docent op voor een specifieke opdracht

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "courseId": "<courseId>",
      "assignmentId": "<assignmentId>"
    },
    "name": "get-assignment-feedback"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`courseId`	Yes	Het ID van het vak
`assignmentId`	Yes	Het ID van de opdracht

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 20, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states the action but does not disclose permissions, rate limits, or what the feedback contains. No output schema exists to fill this gap.

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?

Single, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the action. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal. It explains what the tool does but lacks details about the feedback content or response format. For a retrieval tool, more context would help differentiate from similar tools.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Input schema has 100% coverage with Dutch descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves teacher feedback for a specific assignment. It uses a specific verb ('Haal op') and resource ('feedback'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'get-all-feedback' and 'get-assignment-details'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that 'get-all-feedback' retrieves all feedback or that 'get-unread-feedback' is for unread feedback. The description only tells what it does, not when to choose it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.