Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
vishalsachdev

Canvas MCP Server

by vishalsachdev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Generate Peer Review Feedback Report

generate_peer_review_feedback_report
Read-only

Generate instructor-ready reports that assess peer review quality for a Canvas course assignment, with configurable report type, output format, and optional student names.

Instructions

Create instructor-ready reports on peer review quality.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
format_typeNoOutput format (markdown, html, text)markdown
report_typeNoReport type (comprehensive, summary, individual)comprehensive
assignment_idYesCanvas assignment ID
course_identifierYesCourse code or Canvas ID
include_student_namesNoInclude student names

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. Changed15 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 / format_type / description
      Added value: +"Output format (markdown, html, text)"
    • removedInput schema / properties / format_type / title
      Removed value: -"Format Type"
    • addedInput schema / properties / include_student_names / description
      Added value: +"Include student names"
    • removedInput schema / properties / include_student_names / title
      Removed value: -"Include Student Names"
    • addedInput schema / properties / report_type / description
      Added value: +"Report type (comprehensive, summary, individual)"
    • removedInput schema / properties / report_type / title
      Removed value: -"Report Type"
    • removedInput schema / title
      Removed value: -"generate_peer_review_feedback_reportArguments"
    • removedOutput schema / properties / result / title
      Removed value: -"Result"
    • removedOutput schema / title
      Removed value: -"generate_peer_review_feedback_reportOutput"
    • addedOutput schema / x-fastmcp-wrap-result
      Added value: +true
  3. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.0
    • addedInput schema / title
      Added value: +"generate_peer_review_feedback_reportArguments"
  4. First observed

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does 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 could have spent its words on adding value. It adds only the 'instructor-ready' audience framing, and says nothing about what the report contains, whether it aggregates data behind the scenes, or privacy handling beyond the schema's include_student_names flag.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted clauses. It is terse rather than padded, though that terseness is what leaves the gaps above.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Five parameters, no output schema, and a dense cluster of sibling reporting tools. The description should at least say what the report covers and when to pick it over generate_peer_review_report; it does neither.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are already documented in the schema, including format_type, report_type, and include_student_names. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the baseline 3 case.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a verb and resource ('Create instructor-ready reports on peer review quality'), but the purpose is vague for a tool that sits next to generate_peer_review_report, analyze_peer_review_quality, and get_peer_review_completion_analytics. Nothing in the sentence tells an agent how this report differs from those siblings.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no naming of alternatives. With four closely-named peer-review reporting tools in the sibling list, the agent has to guess which one applies.

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