Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
vishalsachdev

Canvas MCP Server

by vishalsachdev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

List Rubrics

list_rubrics
Read-only

Retrieve all rubrics for a specific Canvas course, with optional detailed criteria and ratings, to review grading standards and assessment expectations.

Instructions

List all rubrics in a specific course with optional detailed criteria.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
include_criteriaNoInclude detailed criteria and ratings (default: True)
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 / course_identifier / description
      Added value: +"Course code or Canvas ID"
    • removedInput schema / properties / course_identifier / title
      Removed value: -"Course Identifier"
    • addedInput schema / properties / include_criteria / description
      Added value: +"Include detailed criteria and ratings (default: True)"
    • removedInput schema / properties / include_criteria / title
      Removed value: -"Include Criteria"
    • removedInput schema / title
      Removed value: -"list_rubricsArguments"
    • removedOutput schema / properties / result / title
      Removed value: -"Result"
    • removedOutput schema / title
      Removed value: -"list_rubricsOutput"
    • addedOutput schema / x-fastmcp-wrap-result
      Added value: +true
  3. Addedv1.3.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds that criteria are optional via the 'include_criteria' flag, but says nothing about pagination, result size, or ordering that an agent might need.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the verb and scope front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing to trim and nothing essential buried.

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 simple read-only two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is adequate but thin: no pagination behavior, no note on dataset scope, and no distinction from the other rubric 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (course_identifier, include_criteria) are already documented in the schema. The phrase 'optional detailed criteria' loosely maps to include_criteria but adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List all rubrics') plus the scope ('in a specific course'), which separates it from get_rubric (single rubric) well enough to act on. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.

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 implies the read case but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no pointer to alternatives like get_rubric for a single rubric or create_rubric/update_rubric for mutation. The agent must infer routing from the tool list alone.

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