canvas_api_getSend read-only GET requests to any Canvas LMS REST API v1 endpoint. Use it to query courses, discussion topics, or other Canvas resources when no dedicated tool exists.
Escape hatch: GET any Canvas REST endpoint under /api/v1 (read-only). Example path: /api/v1/courses/123/discussion_topics
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| params | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the /api/v1 scope and an example path, but does not discuss auth requirements, pagination, error behavior, or rate limits. It adds some value beyond annotations without being rich behavioral guidance.
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?
The description is two compact sentences: the purpose and scope are front-loaded, followed by a useful example path. There is no redundant or filler text.
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 an open-world raw GET tool with no output schema, the description gives enough to identify the endpoint pattern but omits the optional params usage and does not mention response shape, errors, or pagination. It is minimally adequate as an escape hatch but leaves meaningful gaps for an agent invoking arbitrary Canvas endpoints.
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%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify the required path parameter's scope and gives a concrete example, but it never explains the optional params object or how its entries map to query-string 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 gives a specific verb (GET), resource (any Canvas REST endpoint under /api/v1), and framing (escape hatch, read-only). It clearly distinguishes this raw passthrough from the many specific canvas_* sibling tools.
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?
Calling it an 'escape hatch' strongly implies use when no dedicated Canvas tool covers the endpoint, and the example clarifies the expected path form. It does not explicitly say to prefer sibling tools first, so it stops short of a full when/when-not/alternative rubric.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.