canvas_get_gradesRetrieves your own submissions for a course, including scores, grades, late or missing flags, and teacher comments.
Your own submissions in a course (as a student) with scores, grades, late/missing flags and teacher comments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| course_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by scoping results to the caller's own submissions and listing the fields returned, but it says nothing about behavior for a teacher/instructor account, empty-result behavior, or whether unpublished grades are included.
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 dense sentence that front-loads the scope ('Your own submissions in a course') before the field list. No filler, though the parenthetical placement slightly breaks the flow.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description does a fair job of describing the return contents. But for a tool whose only input is course_id, the description leaves the parameter format and the student-only behavioral boundary (what happens for instructors) unexplained, which is a real gap for an agent composing the call.
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?
There is one required parameter, course_id, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it or its expected form (numeric ID vs. Canvas course code). With a single undocumented parameter the description needed to carry that weight and 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 names a specific resource (the caller's own submissions in a course) and enumerates the payload fields — scores, grades, late/missing flags, teacher comments — which clearly separates it from canvas_list_assignments and canvas_get_assignment. It stops short of a verb phrase and never explicitly contrasts itself with the assignment tools, but the resource 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?
The parenthetical '(as a student)' implies the eligibility condition: this returns the caller's own grades, not a teacher's view of a roster. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when this is the wrong tool (e.g. versus canvas_get_assignment for assignment metadata), and no prerequisites such as enrollment.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.