checker_answerGiven a question id and the chosen option (its choice index), return the next question or the final verdict.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| choice | Yes | ||
| question | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the core behavior — returning the next question or the final verdict for a given question id and choice — but it does not disclose whether the tool has side effects on state, how invalid choices are handled, or any additional constraints.
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 a single sentence that front-loads inputs and clearly states the result. Every word earns its place, and the title adds useful context without redundancy.
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 two-parameter tool, the description conveys the core flow adequately. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves gaps around the exact shape of the returned next question or verdict, the source of the question id, and behavior for invalid input.
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%, and the description compensates by explaining both parameters: 'question' is an id (not just any string) and 'choice' is the index of the chosen option. This meaningfully exceeds the schema's minimal 'string' and 'integer >= 0' definitions, though it does not specify where the question id originates or the valid range of choices.
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 verb ('return') and resource ('the next question or the final verdict'), and clarifies both inputs ('question id' and chosen option's 'choice' index). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like checker_start or checker_tree, but the title and phrasing make its role reasonably distinct.
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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as checker_start, checker_tree, or the enquiry_* tools. The description does not state prerequisites, such as where the question id comes from or that the tool should be called after receiving a question from a prior step.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The two prefixes (checker_ and enquiry_) cleanly separate the decision guide from the enquiry flow. Within each group, start/answer/tree and describe/fields/submit have distinct roles, and the descriptions make overlap unlikely.
All names are lowercase snake_case and grouped by prefix, which provides strong consistency. The post-prefix words mix nouns and verbs (start, tree, describe, submit_enquiry), so it is not a uniform verb_noun pattern.
Six tools is appropriate for this narrow scope: three for the decision guide lifecycle and three for the enquiry submission flow. No tool feels redundant or missing at a high level.
The tool set covers the complete user journey: learn about the guide, step through it or inspect the full tree, understand the enquiry, fetch its fields, and submit with consent/confirmation. No obvious dead-end or missing operation is apparent.