get_my_upcoming_assignmentsRetrieve upcoming assignments across all Canvas courses for a specified look-ahead period, defaulting to 7 days, so students can plan deadlines.
Get your upcoming assignments across all courses.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Number of days to look ahead (default: 7) |
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 / days / descriptionAdded value: +"Number of days to look ahead (default: 7)"Input schema / properties / days / titleRemoved value: -"Days"Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"get_my_upcoming_assignmentsArguments"Output schema / properties / result / titleRemoved value: -"Result"Output schema / titleRemoved value: -"get_my_upcoming_assignmentsOutput"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 declares this as a safe read, so the description need not cover safety. It adds the cross-course scope, but says nothing about ordering, timezone handling, or whether the window is due-date based, which are the behaviors an agent would actually care about here.
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 filler. The scope constraint appears immediately and every word earns its place.
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 one-optional-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits any differentiation from the many sibling agenda/assignment tools, which is the main gap an agent would face when choosing among them.
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%, so the single 'days' parameter (default 7) is already fully documented in the schema. The description's 'upcoming' vaguely gestures at the time window but adds no syntax or format meaning beyond it, so the baseline 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get your upcoming assignments') and adds scope ('across all courses'), which separates it from the course-scoped list_assignments. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling personal-agenda tools like get_my_todo_items 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 and no mention of alternatives. Nothing tells the agent whether to prefer this over list_assignments or get_my_todo_items, leaving the choice to inference from the word 'upcoming' alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.