get_my_todo_itemsRetrieve your Canvas TODO list to see pending assignments and tasks across courses. Use it to prioritize coursework and stay on top of upcoming deadlines.
Get your Canvas TODO list.
| 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_todo_itemsArguments"Output schema / properties / result / titleRemoved value: -"Result"Output schema / titleRemoved value: -"get_my_todo_itemsOutput"Output schema / x-fastmcp-wrap-resultAdded value: +truev1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe read. The description adds nothing beyond that - no indication of what constitutes a TODO item (submissions, calendar events, peer reviews?), whether the list is paginated, or what permissions or enrollment scope are required.
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 waste or filler. Its brevity is efficient rather than padded, though the shortness here reflects under-specification more than editorial discipline.
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 is the only source for what the tool returns, and 'TODO list' is a thin characterization of the payload. Complexity is low (zero params) so it is callable, but the agent cannot predict whether the result includes assignments, quizzes, calendar items, or peer reviews.
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 are no parameter semantics to explain and the schema is empty by design. Baseline 4 applies - nothing is left ambiguous about inputs.
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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get your Canvas TODO list'), so an agent knows it retrieves a personal task list. It does not, however, distinguish what this list contains versus closely named siblings like get_my_upcoming_assignments, get_my_peer_reviews_todo, list_planner_notes, or list_calendar_events.
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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. With four or five siblings that also surface personal obligations, the agent has no basis in the description for choosing this tool over them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.