Skip to main content
Glama
vishalsachdev

Canvas MCP Server

by vishalsachdev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

grade_with_rubric

Destructive

Submit student grades by evaluating assignment submissions against rubric criteria. Specify course, assignment, student, and criterion scores to record rubric-based grades in Canvas.

Instructions

Submit grades using rubric criteria.

IMPORTANT: Criterion IDs often start with underscore (e.g., "_8027"). Use get_rubric to find criterion/rating IDs. The rubric must be attached to the assignment and configured for grading (use_for_grading=true).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
commentNoOptional overall comment. OMIT it unless the instructor explicitly asked for written feedback -- "grade this with the rubric" means the grade only. It is visible to the student in SpeedGrader, APPENDS rather than replaces on each call, and cannot be un-sent. Never generate one that merely restates the grade or narrates that grading happened.
user_idYesCanvas user ID of the student
assignment_idYesCanvas assignment ID
course_identifierYesCourse code or Canvas ID
rubric_assessmentYesDict mapping criterion_id to {points (required), rating_id?, comments?}

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.10.0
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "properties": {
-    "result": {
-      "type": "string"
-    }
-  },
-  "required": [
-    "result"
-  ],
-  "type": "object",
-  "x-fastmcp-wrap-result": true
-}New value: +null
  2. Changed15 schema fields changedv1.8.0
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • addedInput schema / properties / assignment_id / description
      Added value: +"Canvas assignment ID"
    • removedInput schema / properties / assignment_id / title
      Removed value: -"Assignment Id"
    • addedInput schema / properties / comment / description
      Added value: +"Optional overall comment. OMIT it unless the instructor\nexplicitly asked for written feedback -- \"grade this with the\nrubric\" means the grade only. It is visible to the student in\nSpeedGrader, APPENDS rather than replaces on each call, and\ncannot be un-sent. Never generate one that merely restates the\ngrade or narrates that grading happened."
    • removedInput schema / properties / comment / title
      Removed value: -"Comment"
    • addedInput schema / properties / course_identifier / description
      Added value: +"Course code or Canvas ID"
    • removedInput schema / properties / course_identifier / title
      Removed value: -"Course Identifier"
    • addedInput schema / properties / rubric_assessment / description
      Added value: +"Dict mapping criterion_id to {points (required), rating_id?, comments?}"
    • removedInput schema / properties / rubric_assessment / title
      Removed value: -"Rubric Assessment"
    • addedInput schema / properties / user_id / description
      Added value: +"Canvas user ID of the student"
    • removedInput schema / properties / user_id / title
      Removed value: -"User Id"
    • removedInput schema / title
      Removed value: -"grade_with_rubricArguments"
    • removedOutput schema / properties / result / title
      Removed value: -"Result"
    • removedOutput schema / title
      Removed value: -"grade_with_rubricOutput"
    • addedOutput schema / x-fastmcp-wrap-result
      Added value: +true
  3. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.0.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / rubric_assessment / additionalProperties
      Added value: +true
    • changedInput schema / properties / rubric_assessment / type
      Previous value: -"string"New value: +"object"
    • addedInput schema / title
      Added value: +"grade_with_rubricArguments"
  4. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description states 'Submit grades' which implies a destructive write operation, consistent with the destructiveHint annotation. It adds no extra behavioral details (e.g., whether grades are overwritten or appended) beyond the annotation, so transparency is adequate but minimal for a tool with annotations present.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, focused sentence followed by two concise 'IMPORTANT' notes. It is well-structured and avoids verbosity, conveying the core purpose and key prerequisites efficiently.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description includes essential context: the need for criterion IDs (with an example), the requirement that the rubric be attached and configured for grading, and a pointer to get_rubric. It does not mention return value, but since no output schema is provided, this gap is acceptable for an action-oriented tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has descriptions for all parameters (e.g., 'Course code or Canvas ID'), providing full coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-specific guidance, so it meets the baseline expected given the high schema description coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Submit grades using rubric criteria.' This specifies the action (submitting grades) and the method (using a rubric), making it distinct from other grading tools like bulk_grade_submissions that may not use rubrics.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not explicitly indicate when to prefer this tool over alternatives. It mentions 'Use get_rubric to find criterion/rating IDs' for a related task, but does not contrast with other grading tools or provide selection criteria.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools