get_my_submissionRetrieve your own submission for a Canvas assignment, including the attempts used. Provide a course identifier and assignment ID to view your submitted work and attempt count.
Get your own submission for an assignment, including attempts used.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| assignment_id | Yes | Canvas assignment ID | |
| course_identifier | Yes | Course code or Canvas ID |
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?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context that the response includes 'attempts used,' but it does not describe permissions, visibility rules, or failure behavior.
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 wording. It states the action, scope, and key returned detail efficiently.
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, the description helpfully notes that the submission includes attempts used. The tool is simple and read-only, so only minor gaps remain, such as when to prefer get_my_submission_status.
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 required parameters are documented directly in the schema. The description does not add further parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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: 'Get your own submission for an assignment.' The phrase 'your own' distinguishes it from instructor-facing siblings like get_student_submission, though it does not name alternatives 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 implied by 'your own submission,' which suggests it is for the current user rather than another student. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative such as get_my_submission_status or get_student_submission.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.