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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the return behavior ('next question or the final verdict'), but it does not disclose whether choosing an option records/persists the answer, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens on an invalid choice or unknown question id. This is a meaningful gap for an operation that advances a flow.
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 concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the inputs and immediately states the return behavior, making every word earn 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 tool with two scalar parameters and no output schema, the description explains the core inputs and output adequately. However, it lacks guidance on how to obtain the initial question (likely via sibling checker_start), what the returned object looks like, and how errors or terminal states are signaled beyond 'final verdict'.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the schema's bare 'string' and 'integer, minimum 0' definitions. The description usefully clarifies that 'question' is a question id and 'choice' is the zero-based index of the chosen option. The phrasing 'question id' slightly conflicts with the parameter name 'question', but it still adds enough meaning for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
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 action: given a question id and chosen option index, return the next question or final verdict. This identifies both the verb and resource, and clearly situates the tool within a sequential question flow. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like checker_start or checker_tree, but the 'next step' framing implicitly distinguishes it.
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 implies when to use the tool: when you have a current question id and have selected an option. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, nor does it point to alternatives such as checker_start for beginning a flow or checker_tree for viewing the overall structure.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct role: checker_start and checker_answer handle interactive progression, checker_tree provides the full decision map for offline reasoning, and the enquiry_* tools separate explanation, schema, and submission. Even where data overlaps, the descriptions clearly indicate which tool to use for which purpose.
The checker_ and enquiry_ prefixes create a useful grouping pattern, and all names are lowercase snake_case. The only minor inconsistency is submit_enquiry using verb-first naming while the other enquiry tools use the enquiry_ prefix, but this does not create real confusion.
Six tools is a well-scoped size for this server: three cover the decision guide interaction and three cover the enquiry flow. Each tool earns its place with no redundant or trivial additions.
The decision guide is fully covered by start, answer, and tree, allowing both step-by-step and end-to-end reasoning. The enquiry flow is also complete with explainer, field schema, and a two-step consent-based submission process, leaving no obvious dead ends.