canvas_snapshot_statusMonitor Canvas snapshot job health to verify courses and your role, last run and duration per course, item counts, errors, next run, and DB size.
Health of the snapshot job: courses and your role in each, last run per course, duration, item counts, errors (e.g. 403s), next run, DB size.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description's added value is disclosing what the response surfaces (403 errors, next run time, DB size), but it says nothing about freshness, cost of the call, or whether errors are summarized versus listed per item.
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 front-loaded sentence identifying the subject, followed by a compact list of reported fields — no filler or repetition. The list is dense but each item earns its place by telling the agent what data comes back.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing the return value, and it does so concretely (per-course role, last run, duration, item counts, errors, next run, DB size). For a zero-param read-only status tool that is nearly complete; only the relationship to the run/snapshot siblings is unaddressed.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; per the baseline rule this lands at 4. The schema is an empty object, consistent with the description's implication that the call is scope-free.
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?
States a specific resource and scope: 'Health of the snapshot job', with a concrete enumeration of what is reported (per-course last run, duration, counts, errors, next run, DB size). It is clearly not canvas_run_snapshot or canvas_course_snapshot, though it never names those siblings to make the distinction explicit.
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?
Usage is only implied by the word 'status' — an agent can infer this is for checking/monitoring rather than triggering a snapshot. There is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of the natural pairing with canvas_run_snapshot, and no stated preconditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.