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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the return behavior and does not say whether calling this tool records/commits the answer, advances state irreversibly, or acts as a pure lookup. Error behavior for invalid question ids or choice indices is also omitted.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the necessary inputs and states the output clearly. There is no filler or redundancy; every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool.
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?
The tool is simple and the core invocation is adequately described, but there is no output schema and no explanation of how this step fits into the checker flow—such as that checker_start supplies the first question and checker_answer drives progression. This missing flow and return-format context make it adequate but not complete.
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%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by mapping 'choice' to the chosen option's index and 'question' to a question id, but it does not clarify the id format/source or explicitly state that choice is 0-based. The schema's minimum constraint hints at it, but the description leaves details implied.
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 names the two inputs (question id and choice index). It is clear and actionable, but it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like checker_start or checker_tree, so it falls short of a 5.
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 a clear usage condition: you use this tool when you have a question id and a chosen option. It does not mention when not to use it or point to alternatives among the sibling tools, so there is clear context but no exclusions.
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 six tools cleanly split into two domains: the checker_* tools handle the decision guide lifecycle (start, progress, full tree) and the enquiry_* tools handle the enquiry form (description, fields, submission). Each tool has a specific, non-overlapping role, and the submit_enquiry tool's two-step confirmation is clearly documented.
The tool names follow a clear prefix convention: checker_* for the decision guide and enquiry_* for the enquiry workflow. There is slight inconsistency in whether the prefix is followed by a noun or verb (e.g., checker_start vs checker_tree), but the overall pattern is predictable and readable.
With six tools, the server is well-scoped. Each tool serves a distinct purpose in one of the two workflows, and there are no redundant or filler tools.
The checker workflow is complete with start, step-by-step progression, and a full tree for end-to-end reasoning. The enquiry workflow is also complete, covering descriptive context, field schema, and a two-step submission process with explicit consent handling.