Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
vishalsachdev

Canvas MCP Server

by vishalsachdev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

List Peer Reviews

list_peer_reviews
Read-only

Retrieve all peer review assignments for a specific Canvas assignment by providing the course identifier and assignment ID.

Instructions

List all peer review assignments for a specific assignment.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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. Changed9 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"
    • removedInput schema / title
      Removed value: -"list_peer_reviewsArguments"
    • removedOutput schema / properties / result / title
      Removed value: -"Result"
    • removedOutput schema / title
      Removed value: -"list_peer_reviewsOutput"
    • addedOutput schema / x-fastmcp-wrap-result
      Added value: +true
  3. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.0
    • addedInput schema / title
      Added value: +"list_peer_reviewsArguments"
  4. First observed

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this is a safe read. The description adds nothing beyond that: no pagination behavior, no indication whether reviews are returned with reviewer/reviewee details or completion status, and no auth/scope notes. With annotations carrying the safety profile, the description could still have added operational context but does not.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, so nothing needs trimming. It is efficient but borders on under-specification given the crowded peer-review namespace.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only list tool with full schema coverage, the essentials are present. What is missing is disambiguation from get_peer_review_assignments and any sense of what the returned review records contain, which matters in a namespace with a dozen peer-review tools.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (assignment_id, course_identifier) are already documented. The description only reinforces that filtering is by assignment and says nothing about the course_identifier format or whether it must match the assignment's course – baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb ('List') and resource ('peer review assignments') plus a scope qualifier ('for a specific assignment'), so the operation is unambiguous on its own terms. It does not differentiate itself from the near-identical sibling get_peer_review_assignments, leaving an agent unable to choose confidently between them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many adjacent peer-review tools (get_peer_review_assignments, get_peer_review_completion_analytics, list_submissions). No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing are stated.

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