fetch_ufixit_reportRetrieve a UFIXIT accessibility report from a Canvas course page using a course code or Canvas ID, with an optional page title, to review accessibility issues.
Fetch UFIXIT accessibility report from Canvas course pages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page_title | No | Title of the UFIXIT report page (default: "UFIXIT") | UFIXIT |
| course_identifier | Yes | Course code or Canvas ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.10.0Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "type": "object",
- "x-fastmcp-wrap-result": true
-}New value: +nullv1.8.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / course_identifier / descriptionAdded value: +"Course code or Canvas ID"Input schema / properties / course_identifier / titleRemoved value: -"Course Identifier"Input schema / properties / page_title / descriptionAdded value: +"Title of the UFIXIT report page (default: \"UFIXIT\")"Input schema / properties / page_title / titleRemoved value: -"Page Title"Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"fetch_ufixit_reportArguments"Output schema / properties / result / titleRemoved value: -"Result"Output schema / titleRemoved value: -"fetch_ufixit_reportOutput"Output schema / x-fastmcp-wrap-resultAdded value: +truev1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's remaining burden is low, but it still adds little. It does not say what happens if no page titled 'UFIXIT' exists (empty result vs. error), whether it searches within a single course only, or what form the report takes.
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 with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined economy.
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 is the only place the agent could learn what a 'UFIXIT report' contains or how it relates to parse_ufixit_violations downstream. For a retrieval tool whose value depends on the returned report structure, this leaves a meaningful gap.
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 100%, with both course_identifier and page_title fully documented including the 'UFIXIT' default, so the schema carries parameter semantics. The description adds no clarification on accepted course code formats or when to override page_title, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('UFIXIT accessibility report') and states the source location ('from Canvas course pages'). It does not distinguish this from closely related siblings such as parse_ufixit_violations, scan_course_content_accessibility, or format_accessibility_summary, leaving the agent to infer whether this retrieves a pre-existing page versus generating a report.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or exclusions are given. Given siblings like parse_ufixit_violations and scan_course_content_accessibility in the same accessibility family, the description should explicitly say whether this is the retrieval step that feeds those tools, but it says nothing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.