Skip to main content
Glama

create_rubric

Destructive

Create a rubric in a Canvas course with custom criteria, ratings, and optional assignment association for grading.

Instructions

Create a new rubric in a course, optionally associating it with an assignment.

Uses bracket-notation form-data encoding required by the Canvas rubric API.

The criteria parameter is a JSON string mapping arbitrary criterion keys to objects with the following fields:

  • description (required): Short criterion label shown in the rubric grid

  • points (required): Maximum points for this criterion (non-negative number)

  • long_description (optional): Detailed criterion description

  • ratings (optional): List (or object) of rating levels, each with:

    • description (required): Rating label (e.g. "Excellent")

    • points (required): Points for this rating (non-negative number)

    • long_description (optional): Detailed rating description

Example criteria JSON::

{
  "c1": {
    "description": "Content Quality",
    "points": 10,
    "ratings": [
      {"description": "Excellent", "points": 10},
      {"description": "Satisfactory", "points": 7},
      {"description": "Needs Work", "points": 3}
    ]
  },
  "c2": {
    "description": "Grammar",
    "points": 5,
    "ratings": [
      {"description": "No errors", "points": 5},
      {"description": "Minor errors", "points": 3}
    ]
  }
}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleYesRubric title
criteriaYesJSON string defining rubric criteria (see docstring above)
reusableNoMake rubric reusable across courses (default: False)
assignment_idNoOptional assignment ID to immediately associate the rubric with
use_for_gradingNoWhen associating with an assignment, use rubric for grade calculation (default: False)
course_identifierYesCourse code or Canvas ID
free_form_criterion_commentsNoAllow free-form comments per criterion instead of rating selection (default: False)
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations include idempotentHint: false and destructiveHint: true. The description adds value by noting the bracket-notation form-data encoding and detailing the criteria JSON structure, which goes beyond the annotations. However, it does not elaborate on additional side effects, permissions, or rate limits, though the encoding and structure are useful behavioral context.

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 well-organized with a clear first sentence stating purpose, a technical note about encoding, a structured breakdown of the criteria parameter, and a concrete example. It is front-loaded and every section serves a purpose, with no redundant content despite its length.

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 thoroughly covers the tool's purpose and the complex criteria parameter with an example, plus a crucial encoding note. It does not mention return values, but there is no output schema, and for a creation tool this is typically not critical. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description significantly enhances parameter semantics, especially for 'criteria', by specifying its JSON structure, required fields (description, points), optional fields (long_description, ratings), and an example. This goes well beyond the schema's one-line description and is essential for correct invocation.

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 tool's purpose: 'Create a new rubric in a course, optionally associating it with an assignment.' This is specific with a verb (create), resource (rubric), and scope (in a course). It distinguishes from siblings like list_rubrics, get_rubric, and associate_rubric by focusing on creation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for usage by explaining the tool creates a rubric and optionally links it to an assignment, along with a detailed breakdown of the criteria parameter and an example. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like create_rubric_from_csv or associate_rubric, nor does it state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/vishalsachdev/canvas-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server