Model Context Protocol サーバーで、MCP クライアント（Claude Desktop、Claude Code、その他 MCP を話せるものなら何でも）に Canvas LMS アカウントへの読み取り専用アクセスを提供します。
次の2つの質問に答えます：
「何を受講していて、成績はどうか？」 — 現在の成績が付いているアクティブなコース。
「まだ提出していないものは何で、いつ締切か？」 — 期限が設定されている未提出の課題。
通信は標準の stdio トランスポートを使用するため、クライアントはサーバーをサブプロセスとして起動します。MCP トラフィック以外は stdout に書き込まれません。
Node.js 18.17 以降（サーバーは組み込みの fetch を使用）
Canvas の個人アクセストークン
Related MCP server: Canvas MCP Server
cd canvas-mcp-server
npm install両方の変数が必須です。どちらかが欠けている場合、サーバーは明確なメッセージを表示して終了します。
変数 | 説明 | 例 |
| Canvas インスタンスのルート。末尾の |
|
| Canvas の個人アクセストークン。 |
|
Canvas にログインします。
Account → Settings に移動します。
Approved Integrations の下にある + New Access Token をクリックします。
目的を入力し、（任意で）有効期限を設定して、Generate Token をクリックします。
トークンをすぐにコピーします — Canvas は一度しか表示しません。
このトークンは Canvas のすべての権限を持ちます。バージョン管理には含めず、漏洩した場合は同じ設定ページから失効させてください。
MCP クライアント設定にサーバーを追加し、src/index.js の絶対パスを指定します：
{
"mcpServers": {
"canvas": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["/absolute/path/to/canvas-mcp-server/src/index.js"],
"env": {
"CANVAS_API_URL": "https://asu.instructure.com",
"CANVAS_ACCESS_TOKEN": "your-token-here"
}
}
}
}Claude Desktop — claude_desktop_config.json
（macOS: ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/、Windows: %APPDATA%\Claude\）。
Claude Code — claude mcp add canvas --env CANVAS_API_URL=... --env CANVAS_ACCESS_TOKEN=... -- node /absolute/path/to/canvas-mcp-server/src/index.js
設定を編集したらクライアントを再起動します。
list_courses_and_grades学生としてアクティブに登録されているすべてのコースと、その現在の成績。
パラメータ | 型 | デフォルト | 説明 |
| boolean |
| すでに終了したタームのアクティブな登録も含めます。 |
あなたの機関が grading period を使用している場合、Canvas は成績を2回報告します。進行中の period のものと、コース全体のものです。grades.scope フィールドはどちらを見ているかを示します：
current_grading_period — スコアは進行中の grading period を対象としており、course_total_score / course_total_grade にはコース全体の数値が入ります。
course_total — 機関が grading period を使用していないため、スコアはコース合計です。
unavailable — Canvas が成績データ付きの登録を返しませんでした。
どちらのスコープでも、current_* はまだ採点されていない課題を無視しますが、final_* は未採点の課題をゼロとして数えます。
{
"courses": [
{
"id": "101",
"name": "Full Stack Web Development",
"course_code": "GIT-411",
"term": "Fall 2026",
"term_start": "2026-08-20T00:00:00Z",
"term_end": "2026-12-18T00:00:00Z",
"enrollment_state": "active",
"grades": {
"current_score": 88.0,
"current_grade": "B+",
"final_score": 80.5,
"final_grade": "B-",
"scope": "current_grading_period",
"grading_period_title": "Fall Term",
"course_total_score": 91.4,
"course_total_grade": "A-"
},
"html_url": "https://asu.instructure.com/courses/101"
}
],
"course_count": 1,
"retrieved_at": "2026-09-01T12:00:00.000Z"
}list_upcoming_assignmentsアクティブなコース全体でまだ未提出の課題を、期限日順（早い順）に並べたもの。
パラメータ | 型 | デフォルト | 説明 |
| 整数 1〜365、または |
| どのくらい先まで見るか。 |
| boolean |
| 提出されていない期限切れの課題を含めます。 |
| boolean |
| 期限日のない未提出の課題を含めます。 |
| string[] | すべてのアクティブなコース | 特定の Canvas コース ID に制限します。 |
課題は、公開され、採点可能で、未提出・未採点・未免除の場合に未提出としてカウントされます。具体的には、以下は除外されます：
提出タイムスタンプがあるもの
submitted、pending_review、または graded 状態の提出
免除された課題
すでにスコアまたは成績が付いている課題（手動または紙ベースの入力）
not_graded の課題（出席プレースホルダーなど）
非公開の課題
{
"assignments": [
{
"id": "9004",
"name": "Missed lab writeup",
"course_id": "101",
"course_name": "Full Stack Web Development",
"due_at": "2026-08-28T06:59:00.000Z",
"days_until_due": -4.2,
"overdue": true,
"points_possible": 25,
"submission_types": ["online_upload"],
"submission_state": "unsubmitted",
"missing": true,
"locked": false,
"unlock_at": null,
"lock_at": null,
"html_url": "https://asu.instructure.com/courses/101/assignments/9004"
}
],
"assignment_count": 1,
"courses_checked": 2,
"window": {
"from": "2026-09-01T12:00:00.000Z",
"to": "2026-09-15T12:00:00.000Z",
"include_overdue": true,
"include_undated": false
},
"errors": [],
"retrieved_at": "2026-09-01T12:00:00.000Z"
}1つのコースが読み取れない場合 — 終了済み、制限付き、その他のエラー — そのコースは errors にリストされ、残りのコースは結果を返し続けます。
ページネーション。 Canvas はすべてのコレクションを Link ヘッダーでページ分割します。クライアントはエンドポイントごとに100レコードずつ rel="next" をたどり、最大20ページまでで打ち切るため、不正なレスポンスが無限ループを引き起こすことはありません。
並行性。 Canvas のレート制限を避けるため、課題は最大5コースから同時に取得されます。
現在のターム。 デフォルトでは、タームが終了していないコースのみが返されます。Canvas のデフォルトタームには終了日がなく、常に含まれます。
エラー。 Canvas の失敗は、ステータスコードと Canvas 自身のメッセージを含む MCP ツールエラーとして返され、一般的なケース（401 → トークン不正、404 → URL 誤り）のヒントが付きます。
読み取り専用。 両方のツールは readOnlyHint で注釈されています。サーバーは GET リクエストのみを発行し、Canvas データを変更することはありません。
npm test # 36 tests: API client, grade logic, filtering, and an end-to-end MCP round tripテストスイートは記録された Canvas ペイロードを持つ fetch の代替を使用するため、ネットワークや実際のトークンは不要です。すべてのフィクスチャの日付は、テストが実行される時点を基準にしています。
src/
index.js MCP server: tool definitions, schemas, stdio wiring
canvas.js Canvas REST client: auth, pagination, error mapping
courses.js Active-course and grade normalization
assignments.js Outstanding-assignment filtering and due-date windowsMIT
Fetch every course the user is actively enrolled in as a student, together with the current grade for each. When the institution uses grading periods, the score reported is for the grading period in progress and the whole-course total is included alongside it (see the 'scope' field). Defaults to the current term only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include_all_terms | No | Include active enrollments from terms that have already ended. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| courses | Yes | |
| course_count | Yes | |
| retrieved_at | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral nuance beyond those: grading-period behavior, inclusion of the whole-course total alongside the in-progress score, and the 'scope' field for interpretation. This is valuable context for a read-only listing tool.
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 two concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose, and the second adds an important grading-period nuance. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.
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?
For a simple read-only listing tool with one optional parameter, an output schema, and high schema coverage, the description is complete. It explains active enrollment, grading-period behavior, and term defaulting, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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 100%, and the only parameter, include_all_terms, is well documented in the schema with a clear description and default value. The main description restates the default behavior ('Defaults to the current term only') but adds no additional parameter-level meaning, 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.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Fetch every course the user is actively enrolled in as a student') and a clear resource ('courses... together with the current grade for each'). It also adds meaningful scope distinctions like 'Defaults to the current term only' and grading-period behavior, which clearly separates it from the sibling assignment-listing tool.
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?
The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: when you need active course enrollments and current grades, defaulting to the current term. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions relative to list_upcoming_assignments, but the course/grade vs. assignment subject matter implies the boundary clearly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Fetch assignments across the user's active courses that are still outstanding — not submitted, not graded, and not excused — with their due dates, sorted soonest first. Past-due work that was never turned in is included by default.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| course_ids | No | Restrict to these Canvas course IDs. Defaults to all active courses. | |
| days_ahead | No | How far ahead to look, in days. Pass null for no upper bound. | |
| include_overdue | No | Include past-due assignments that were never submitted. | |
| include_undated | No | Include outstanding assignments that have no due date. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| errors | Yes | Courses that could not be read; the rest of the results are still valid. |
| window | Yes | |
| assignments | Yes | |
| retrieved_at | Yes | |
| courses_checked | Yes | |
| assignment_count | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. It goes beyond the annotations by specifying the filtering logic (not submitted, not graded, not excused), sorting order (soonest first), and default inclusion of overdue items. This adds useful behavioral context without contradicting the annotations.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds value. It efficiently conveys the tool's scope, filtering criteria, ordering, and default behavior without any fluff.
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 the output schema exists (as noted in the context), the description doesn't need to explain return values. The tool is relatively simple with 4 optional parameters, and the description plus schema fully cover the behavior. It could be a 5, but the absence of any prerequisites or error conditions keeps it at a solid 4.
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?
The schema already covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds a bit more by explaining the filtering and sorting behavior, which relates to how the parameters interact (e.g., include_overdue default true). Since schema coverage is high, a baseline 3 is appropriate, but the description's mention of 'sorted soonest first' and 'Past-due work ... included by default' adds context beyond the schema, justifying a 4.
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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and identifies the resource ('assignments across the user's active courses') with clear criteria ('not submitted, not graded, not excused'). It also notes the sorting by due date and the inclusion of past-due unsubmitted work, which distinguishes it from the sibling tool (list_courses_and_grades) that focuses on grades and courses.
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?
The description makes it clear that the tool is for outstanding assignments, which implies using it when you need to see what's due or overdue. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention the sibling alternative, but the context is sufficiently clear for most use cases, and the default behavior (including overdue) is disclosed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0list_courses_and_gradeslist_upcoming_assignmentsScored across 2 tools
The two tools serve clearly distinct purposes: one retrieves course enrollments with grades, the other retrieves upcoming assignments. There is no ambiguity in selecting between them.
Both tools follow a consistent 'list_' prefix followed by a clear noun phrase ('courses_and_grades', 'upcoming_assignments'), making the naming pattern uniform and predictable.
With only two tools, the server feels minimal but not entirely unreasonable for a focused student dashboard scope. The count is at the borderline of being thin, as agents may expect additional related operations.
The tool surface covers the two primary student needs (grades and upcoming assignments) but lacks operations like retrieving individual course details, assignment submissions, or past assignmentscars. This leaves notable gaps for broader academic workflows, though it may suffice for a narrow use case.
Manage your Canvas coursework with quick access to courses, assignments, and grades. Track upcomin…
Read-only access to Epivo's live course catalogue for AI agents.
Search university course materials, your flashcards, quizzes, streak and quota. All tools read-only.
Ask your AI about your Airbnb and VRBO listings, bookings, guest messages and reviews. Read-only.
