Skip to main content
Glama

grade_with_rubric

Grade student submissions by applying rubric criteria with point values and optional comments. Requires criterion IDs, an attached rubric with use_for_grading=true.

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).

    Args:
        course_identifier: Course code or Canvas ID
        assignment_id: Canvas assignment ID
        user_id: Canvas user ID of the student
        rubric_assessment: Dict mapping criterion_id to {points (required), rating_id?, comments?}
        comment: Optional overall comment for the submission
    

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
course_identifierYes
assignment_idYes
user_idYes
rubric_assessmentYes
commentNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It describes the action as 'Submit grades' but does not clarify whether grades are overwritten, if the submission is final, or any permission requirements. The description omits critical details about side effects (e.g., irreversible grading, notification to students) that are essential for an agent to use the tool safely.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is well-structured with a clear summary followed by an 'Args:' block. It is not overly verbose, but the bullet-like listing of arguments adds slight redundancy. Overall, it is efficient and front-loaded with key usage notes, earning a high score for conciseness.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (nested rubric_assessment, 5 parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers input semantics well but does not mention the return value or any post-submission behavior. The output schema exists, which reduces the burden, but a brief note on what the response contains would enhance completeness. The description is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully explain parameters. It does so effectively, listing each parameter with clear definitions, especially the complex 'rubric_assessment' parameter: 'Dict mapping criterion_id to {points (required), rating_id?, comments?}'. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's generic 'object' type, ensuring the agent constructs valid inputs.

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 explicitly states 'Submit grades using rubric criteria,' making the tool's purpose clear. The verb 'submit' and the resource 'grades using rubric criteria' precisely define the action. Among sibling tools like 'bulk_grade_submissions' and 'get_rubric_assessment', this tool uniquely focuses on single-student rubric-based grading, and the description effectively distinguishes it.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides important guidance: 'Use get_rubric to find criterion/rating IDs' and 'The rubric must be attached to the assignment and configured for grading (use_for_grading=true).' This clarifies prerequisites and directs the agent to necessary preparatory steps. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like 'bulk_grade_submissions', which would strengthen guidance.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/vishalsachdev/canvas-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server