get_my_profileRetrieve your own Canvas identity—user ID, name, and login ID—to answer who you are when a tool needs your Canvas user ID or NetID; returns only your record.
Get YOUR own Canvas identity (user ID, name, login ID).
Answers "who am I?" — useful when a tool needs your Canvas user ID or NetID. Reports only your own record, never anybody else's.
| 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: +nullv1.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already signals the safety profile; the description adds a real behavioral guarantee beyond that — results are strictly scoped to the caller's own record and will never return another user's data. It stops short of covering auth/error behavior, but for a trivial self-read that is a small gap.
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?
Front-loaded verb and return fields in the first line, with the scoping caveat second. Three short lines, no filler, nothing repeated from the schema.
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 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden and mostly does: it names the returned fields and the access scope. Only unaddressed edge case is failure behavior when unauthenticated, which is minor for this 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 to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is needed by framing it as a pure identity lookup.
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 your own Canvas identity) and immediately enumerates the returned fields: user ID, name, login ID. The phrase 'Reports only your own record, never anybody else's' cleanly separates it from sibling lookups like list_users or get_student_submission.
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?
Gives a concrete trigger — 'useful when a tool needs your Canvas user ID or NetID' — and frames the tool as answering 'who am I?'. It does not name an explicit alternative or when-not condition, but for a zero-arg self-lookup the context is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.