Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
vishalsachdev

Canvas MCP Server

by vishalsachdev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Identify Problematic Peer Reviews

identify_problematic_peer_reviews
Read-only

Flag peer reviews that may need instructor attention by course and assignment, with optional custom criteria to identify problematic reviews for follow-up.

Instructions

Flag reviews that may need instructor attention.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
criteriaNoJSON string of custom flagging criteria
assignment_idYesCanvas assignment ID
course_identifierYesCourse code or Canvas ID

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. Changed11 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 / course_identifier / description
      Added value: +"Course code or Canvas ID"
    • removedInput schema / properties / course_identifier / title
      Removed value: -"Course Identifier"
    • addedInput schema / properties / criteria / description
      Added value: +"JSON string of custom flagging criteria"
    • removedInput schema / properties / criteria / title
      Removed value: -"Criteria"
    • removedInput schema / title
      Removed value: -"identify_problematic_peer_reviewsArguments"
    • removedOutput schema / properties / result / title
      Removed value: -"Result"
    • removedOutput schema / title
      Removed value: -"identify_problematic_peer_reviewsOutput"
    • addedOutput schema / x-fastmcp-wrap-result
      Added value: +true
  3. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.0
    • addedInput schema / title
      Added value: +"identify_problematic_peer_reviewsArguments"
  4. First observed

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it identifies reviews potentially needing instructor attention, but does not explain how flagging works, what criteria mean, or what the output contains. With annotations covering safety, this is minimally adequate but sparse.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and contains no filler. It is appropriately concise for a short description, though the overall definition is under-specified for the tool's complexity.

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

Completeness2/5

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

There is no output schema, and the description does not explain return values or how flagged reviews are represented. It also omits the custom criteria behavior and any indication of how many reviews are returned. Given the tool's apparent complexity, this is a significant gap.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the three parameters are fully documented in the schema itself. The description provides no additional parameter meaning, which is acceptable given the high coverage but does not add value beyond it.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb ('Flag') and resource ('reviews') with a clear qualifier ('that may need instructor attention'). It is understandable without opening the schema, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like analyze_peer_review_quality or get_peer_review_followup_list.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. An agent must infer that this is for instructors scanning peer reviews, but there is no explicit routing guidance.

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