Skip to main content
Glama
vishalsachdev

Canvas MCP Server

by vishalsachdev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

generate_peer_review_feedback_report

Read-only

Create instructor-ready reports on peer review quality for Canvas assignments. Select from comprehensive, summary, or individual views to evaluate student feedback and guide improvements.

Instructions

Create instructor-ready reports on peer review quality.

Input Schema

TableJSON 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

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation communicates that the tool does not modify state, and the description adds no behavioral detail beyond that. 'Create' suggests output generation rather than a pure read, but it does not contradict readOnlyHint; no additional side-effect, permission, or output-format behavior is disclosed.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler. It is appropriately concise, even though other dimensions lack depth.

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?

For a report-generation tool with no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the report contains, how report types differ, what formats map to, or when this should be chosen over the many sibling analytics and report tools.

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 the parameters are already documented. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, and it does not clarify how report_type, format_type, or include_student_names interact for different report variants.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific action ('Create'), a concrete resource ('reports on peer review quality'), and a target audience ('instructor-ready'). It is clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like generate_peer_review_report or analyze_peer_review_quality.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus related peer-review reporting or analytics tools. The description implies its use for instructor-facing feedback reports, but it does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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