get_course_structureRetrieve a course's complete module and item structure in one call, including unpublished content by default, to map course organization and materials.
Get the full module and item structure for a course in a single call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| course_identifier | Yes | Course code or Canvas ID | |
| include_unpublished | No | Include unpublished modules and items (default: True) |
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value: -"Course Identifier"Input schema / properties / include_unpublished / descriptionAdded value: +"Include unpublished modules and items (default: True)"Input schema / properties / include_unpublished / titleRemoved value: -"Include Unpublished"Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"get_course_structureArguments"Output schema / properties / result / titleRemoved value: -"Result"Output schema / titleRemoved value: -"get_course_structureOutput"Output schema / x-fastmcp-wrap-resultAdded value: +truev1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns the full structure in one call, which is useful behavioral context. It does not describe the return format, pagination behavior, or permission requirements, but with annotations covering safety, this is adequate.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the core action and its key efficiency trait immediately.
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?
For a simple two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and readOnly annotations, the description is minimally sufficient. However, because this is an aggregation tool, it could better state what 'full module and item structure' includes (e.g., nested modules with items) and whether it is meant to replace the list tools.
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 description coverage is 100%, and both parameters are clearly documented in the schema, including the accepted course identifier forms and the unpublished-content toggle. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 and resource: it retrieves the full module and item structure for a course. The phrase 'in a single call' hints at aggregation and distinguishes it somewhat from list_modules or list_module_items, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'in a single call' suggests this is the efficient way to get modules plus items instead of making multiple list calls. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus list_modules or list_module_items, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.