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 full disclosure burden. It does communicate the core state-advancing behavior — an answer yields the next question or verdict — which implies the answer is recorded and the flow moves forward. However, it does not disclose whether answers are irreversible, how invalid choice indices are handled, or whether repeated calls are allowed.
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 dense sentence front-loads the input contract and states the output type. The title adds a readable paraphrase without redundancy. Every word earns its place.
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 low-complexity two-parameter tool, the core contract is stated clearly. But with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description is the only artifact guiding the agent. It does not link the tool to sibling outputs — where question ids originate or where the option list comes from — nor describe the final verdict shape.
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 bare parameter names 'question' and 'choice' are ambiguous on their own. The description adds genuine meaning by clarifying that question is an id and choice is the index of the chosen option. Still, it does not specify the question id format or how valid options are discovered.
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 clear input contract ('Given a question id and the chosen option (its choice index)') and the exact output ('return the next question or the final verdict'). This functionally distinguishes the tool from checker_start and checker_tree, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.
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 on when to call this tool versus checker_start or checker_tree. The sequencing is only implied by the phrase 'the next question'; the description never states that this tool should follow a start call or that question ids and choices come from prior tool responses.
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 tools split cleanly into two workflows: the checker guide (start, answer, tree) and the enquiry flow (describe, fields, submit). Each tool has a clearly distinct role, and there is no meaningful overlap between them.
The prefixes 'checker_' and 'enquiry_' provide useful grouping, but the action positioning is inconsistent: some tools are verb-led ('checker_start', 'enquiry_describe') while others are noun-led ('checker_tree', 'enquiry_fields') and one reverses the pattern ('submit_enquiry'). It is still readable, but not fully predictable.
Six tools is a well-scoped set covering two focused workflows without unnecessary redundancy. Each tool earns its place, and the count feels appropriate for the server's purpose.
The checker workflow is complete: start, step through, and inspect the whole tree. The enquiry workflow is also complete: understand what it does, see the required fields, and submit with confirmation. No obvious gaps or dead ends exist for the stated purpose.