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, the description must carry the burden. It does disclose the primary behavior - returning the next question or the final verdict - but it does not say whether invoking this tool mutates/persists state, whether repeated calls with the same inputs are idempotent, or what happens on invalid choice indices.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the action, and every clause earns its place by linking inputs to outputs. No filler or repetition.
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 2-parameter tool this is nearly complete: it covers inputs and the two possible outcomes. The main gap is that there is no output schema and the shape of the 'final verdict' or 'next question' is not described, but the expected interaction pattern is clear.
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 usefully reinterprets `question` as a question id and `choice` as the 0-based option index, which adds a little meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it leaves ambiguity about how the id is obtained (e.g., from checker_start) and whether the choice index references the current question's option list.
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 names a specific verb ('return'), the resource (next question / final verdict), and the inputs (question id + choice index), and the title reinforces the one-step advancement action. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like checker_start and checker_tree, which clearly handle starting and viewing the tree rather than stepping through 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 flow is clear: given a question and a chosen option, call this tool to progress to the next step. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name checker_start/checker_tree as alternatives, but the context (answering a question to get the next step) is unambiguous enough that an agent can infer the right moment to invoke it.
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 maps to a clear, distinct step: checker_start begins the guide, checker_answer advances it, checker_tree provides the full map, and the enquiry tools cover description, schema, and submission. There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between the tools.
The checker_* and enquiry_* prefixes clearly group the two workflows, and most names read predictably. Slight inconsistency exists because submit_enquiry reverses the prefix/verb pattern and checker_tree is a noun rather than an action, but the overall pattern remains understandable.
Six tools is well-scoped for the server's two distinct purposes: a three-tool decision guide and a three-tool enquiry workflow. Each tool earns its place and the count is neither bloated nor thin.
The decision guide covers start, progression, and full tree access, so agents can navigate the entire flow. The enquiry workflow covers explanation, field schema, and the full two-step submission process, leaving no obvious dead ends or missing steps.