canvas_list_calendar_eventsRetrieve Canvas calendar events such as lectures, seminars, and exams for a date range, with optional course filtering. Use start and end dates to review upcoming schedule items.
Canvas calendar events (lectures, seminars, exams if teachers added them) in a date range.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end_date | No | ISO, default +14 days | |
| course_ids | No | ||
| start_date | No | ISO, default now |
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, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a useful caveat that lectures/seminars/exams appear only if teachers added them, warning about possible incompleteness. It does not mention pagination, return format, or enrollment scoping.
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 a single compact sentence with no wasted words, and the date-range constraint is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the noun-phrase style is slightly less direct than a verb-led description.
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 simple read-only tool, annotations cover safety and the schema covers date defaults. However, the description does not explain course_ids scope, output shape, or pagination, and there is no output schema to fill those gaps. It is minimally adequate but incomplete.
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 coverage is 67%, with start_date and end_date documented as ISO strings with defaults. The description reinforces the date-range concept but does not explain course_ids filtering, which is undocumented in both schema and description. Baseline 3 is appropriate given partial schema coverage.
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 specific resource (Canvas calendar events) and scopes it to a date range, with examples of event types. It does not explicitly name the listing action, but the tool name supplies that. The resource is distinct from siblings, though no sibling is named for contrast.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance. It does not mention alternatives such as canvas_list_planner_items or canvas_list_assignments, nor does it state prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the resource and date-range phrase.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.