get_my_course_gradesRetrieve your current grades across all enrolled Canvas courses to check performance and identify courses needing attention.
Get your current grades across all enrolled courses.
| 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_my_course_gradesArguments"Output schema / properties / result / titleRemoved value: -"Result"Output schema / titleRemoved value: -"get_my_course_gradesOutput"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 only needs to add context. It contributes the aggregation scope ('all enrolled courses') and currency ('current'), but says nothing about whether grades are per-course totals or weighted, or whether unpublished grades are included.
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 sentence with no filler, and the scope constraint is front-loaded where an agent will read it first.
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 zero-param read-only tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, this is nearly sufficient. The only gap is ambiguity about what 'grades' means in the returned payload (current score vs. final grade vs. letter grade).
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 document; baseline is 4. The schema is trivially complete (additionalProperties: false, no properties).
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 ('Get') and resource ('your current grades') with a scope qualifier ('across all enrolled courses'). This distinguishes it reasonably from assignment-level siblings like get_my_assignment_scores, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
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 implied by the scope phrase 'across all enrolled courses', suggesting an aggregate overview rather than per-assignment detail. However, it never states when to prefer this over get_my_assignment_scores or calculate_grade_scenarios, leaving the agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.