get_anonymization_statusRetrieves the current anonymization status and statistics for Canvas data, helping you verify privacy settings and monitor anonymization coverage.
Get current data anonymization status and statistics.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 / titleRemoved value: -"get_anonymization_statusArguments"Output schema / properties / result / titleRemoved value: -"Result"Output schema / titleRemoved value: -"get_anonymization_statusOutput"Output schema / x-fastmcp-wrap-resultAdded value: +truev1.0.0Input schema / titleAdded value: +"get_anonymization_statusArguments"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds essentially nothing beyond restating the name. It does not disclose what the 'statistics' contain, whether results reflect a point-in-time snapshot, or any permission requirements for viewing anonymization data.
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 repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the detail noted elsewhere.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations beyond readOnlyHint, the description carries the full burden of explaining the return payload, yet 'status and statistics' is left undefined. An agent cannot predict what fields or metrics it will receive, which is a real gap for a status-reporting tool.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. No misleading parameter claims are made.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get current data anonymization status and statistics'), which is clear enough to distinguish a read of anonymization state from the write-oriented sibling create_student_anonymization_map. However, it never says the scope (institution-wide vs. per-course) or what 'statistics' actually covers, so the purpose is clear at a coarse level only.
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?
There is no guidance on when to call this versus the sibling create_student_anonymization_map or any other status tool, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.