Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
vishalsachdev

Canvas MCP Server

by vishalsachdev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Scan Course Content Accessibility

scan_course_content_accessibility
Read-only

Scan Canvas course content by course for basic accessibility issues across pages, assignments, discussions, and syllabus so you can identify and fix problems.

Instructions

Scan Canvas course content for basic accessibility issues.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
content_typesNoComma-separated types to scan: pages, assignments, discussions, syllabuspages,assignments
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 / content_types / description
      Added value: +"Comma-separated types to scan: pages, assignments, discussions, syllabus"
    • removedInput schema / properties / content_types / title
      Removed value: -"Content Types"
    • 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: -"scan_course_content_accessibilityArguments"
    • removedOutput schema / properties / result / title
      Removed value: -"Result"
    • removedOutput schema / title
      Removed value: -"scan_course_content_accessibilityOutput"
    • addedOutput schema / x-fastmcp-wrap-result
      Added value: +true
  3. Addedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
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, and 'Scan' is consistent with that. The description adds the useful scope that it targets basic accessibility issues in course content, but it does not disclose return format, pagination, or depth of scanning beyond annotations.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the action, resource, and target issue type.

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 low-complexity read-only tool with fully described parameters and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema, it could say more about what the scan returns, such as issue lists or summaries, and it does not clarify how it relates to formatting or fixing accessibility findings.

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 course_identifier and content_types are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb, 'Scan', and names the resource, 'Canvas course content', plus the target issue class, 'basic accessibility issues'. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from closely related accessibility tools such as fetch_ufixit_report, parse_ufixit_violations, or fix_accessibility_issues.

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 other accessibility-related siblings, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description implies a scanning use case, but an agent must infer when this is preferable to fetching or parsing a UFIXIT report.

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