Canvas MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool lists items and includes pages, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what the output looks like. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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?

The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. The Args section is well-organized but could be more integrated with the main description. No wasted sentences, though it could be slightly more front-loaded with key information.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no annotations, the description should provide more context about behavior, constraints, and usage. It covers the basics but leaves important operational details unspecified.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds basic semantics for all three parameters, explaining what each represents (course code/ID, module ID, and a boolean for content details). However, it doesn't provide format examples beyond 'badm_554_120251_246794' or explain what 'additional details' includes. This partially compensates for the schema gap but not fully.

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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('items within a specific module'), and specifies the scope includes 'pages'. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_pages' or 'list_assignments', but the module-specific focus is apparent. The purpose is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_pages' or 'list_assignments'. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate or what prerequisites might exist. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection among similar listing functions.

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