Skip to main content
Glama
vishalsachdev

Canvas MCP Server

by vishalsachdev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

assign_peer_review

Manually assign a peer review to a student for a specific Canvas assignment. Specify course, assignment, reviewer, and reviewee to pair students for the review.

Instructions

Manually assign a peer review to a student for a specific assignment.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
reviewee_idYesUser ID of the student whose submission will be reviewed
reviewer_idYesUser ID of the student who will review
assignment_idYesCanvas assignment ID
course_identifierYesCourse code or Canvas ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.10.0
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "properties": {
-    "result": {
-      "type": "string"
-    }
-  },
-  "required": [
-    "result"
-  ],
-  "type": "object",
-  "x-fastmcp-wrap-result": true
-}New value: +null
  2. Changed13 schema fields changedv1.8.0
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • addedInput schema / properties / assignment_id / description
      Added value: +"Canvas assignment ID"
    • removedInput schema / properties / assignment_id / title
      Removed value: -"Assignment Id"
    • addedInput schema / properties / course_identifier / description
      Added value: +"Course code or Canvas ID"
    • removedInput schema / properties / course_identifier / title
      Removed value: -"Course Identifier"
    • addedInput schema / properties / reviewee_id / description
      Added value: +"User ID of the student whose submission will be reviewed"
    • removedInput schema / properties / reviewee_id / title
      Removed value: -"Reviewee Id"
    • addedInput schema / properties / reviewer_id / description
      Added value: +"User ID of the student who will review"
    • removedInput schema / properties / reviewer_id / title
      Removed value: -"Reviewer Id"
    • removedInput schema / title
      Removed value: -"assign_peer_reviewArguments"
    • removedOutput schema / properties / result / title
      Removed value: -"Result"
    • removedOutput schema / title
      Removed value: -"assign_peer_reviewOutput"
    • addedOutput schema / x-fastmcp-wrap-result
      Added value: +true
  3. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.0
    • addedInput schema / title
      Added value: +"assign_peer_reviewArguments"
  4. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate non-idempotent and non-destructive behavior. The description adds no extra context about side effects, permissions, or rate limits, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource, making it easy to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description adequately covers the assignment operation for a simple use case. It does not mention potential side effects or preconditions, but given the annotations and lack of output schema, the information is sufficient.

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?

Schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters and already clarify reviewer vs. reviewee roles. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Manually assign a peer review') and specifies the target ('to a student for a specific assignment'), distinguishing it from other peer-review related tools that focus on listing, analyzing, or generating reports.

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?

The description provides no indication of when to use this tool versus automatic assignment alternatives or other peer-review tools. It only mentions 'manually' but does not clarify scenarios or prerequisites.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools