get_rubric_assessmentRetrieves rubric assessment scores for a specific submission using course, assignment, and student IDs to review grading details.
Get rubric assessment scores for a specific submission.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_id | Yes | Canvas user ID of the student | |
| 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: +nullv1.8.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / assignment_id / descriptionAdded value: +"Canvas assignment ID"Input schema / properties / assignment_id / titleRemoved value: -"Assignment Id"Input schema / properties / course_identifier / descriptionAdded value: +"Course code or Canvas ID"Input schema / properties / course_identifier / titleRemoved value: -"Course Identifier"Input schema / properties / user_id / descriptionAdded value: +"Canvas user ID of the student"Input schema / properties / user_id / titleRemoved value: -"User Id"Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"get_rubric_assessmentArguments"Output schema / properties / result / titleRemoved value: -"Result"Output schema / titleRemoved value: -"get_rubric_assessmentOutput"Output schema / x-fastmcp-wrap-resultAdded value: +truev1.3.0Does 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's remaining burden is lighter, but it adds essentially nothing beyond the title. It does not say what happens when no rubric assessment exists for the submission, whether it returns per-criterion scores plus comments, or any access constraints.
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 or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification for a tool with three required identifiers and no output 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 readOnlyHint and full schema coverage, the baseline needs are met, but there is no output schema and the description says nothing about the shape of returned scores or behavior on ungraded submissions. For an assessment-retrieval tool, that leaves a meaningful gap an agent would want filled.
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 the schema documents all three required parameters (course_identifier, assignment_id, user_id) with clear labels. The description adds no further meaning about accepted ID formats or the string-vs-integer anyOf, which is the baseline 3 case where the schema carries the load.
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 rubric assessment scores') and adds a scope qualifier ('for a specific submission'), so an agent knows it retrieves existing scores rather than definitions or submissions. It stops short of naming sibling tools like get_rubric or grade_with_rubric, so the differentiation is implicit.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives. An agent must infer from 'for a specific submission' and the name that this is a post-grading lookup, and must guess how it differs from get_rubric, list_rubrics, or grade_with_rubric on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.