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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the primary behavior—returning the next question or final verdict—but omits important details such as whether the answer is recorded server-side, what happens if the question id is invalid or the choice index is out of range, and whether repeated calls are idempotent.
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, well-structured sentence with no filler. Every phrase earns its place: it specifies the inputs, the operation, and the possible outputs, making the tool's behavior immediately understandable.
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?
Given there is no output schema, the description reasonably explains the return value (next question or final verdict), but it leaves gaps: it does not state how to obtain a question id, how the 'next question' is represented, or how this tool fits into the broader workflow with checker_start and checker_tree. These gaps mean an agent may need to infer critical context.
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, and it does. It clarifies that 'question' is a question id and 'choice' is the index of the chosen option, adding meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema. However, it does not explain where the question id originates or how to discover valid choice ranges.
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'), making the tool's core function clear. It distinguishes itself from siblings by describing the progression behavior, though it does not explicitly name any sibling as an alternative.
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 the tool is used after a question has been presented and an option chosen, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus checker_start, checker_tree, or the enquiry_* tools. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the workflow context.
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 serves a clearly distinct purpose: checker_start begins the guide, checker_answer advances it interactively, and checker_tree provides the full structure for end-to-end reasoning. The enquiry_* tools are similarly distinct: describe explains the process, fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the two-step submission. There is no meaningful overlap between any tools.
The tools are grouped under identifiable prefixes: checker_* for the decision guide and enquiry_* for the enquiry workflow. The main deviation is submit_enquiry, which uses verb-first naming rather than the enquiry_ prefix pattern, and there is some mixing of noun and verb suffixes. Overall the pattern is still readable and predictable with only minor inconsistencies.
Six tools is well-scoped for this server's two related purposes: navigating the incorporation shortlist guide and submitting an enquiry. Each tool has a clear, non-redundant role, and the count is appropriate without feeling thin or bloated.
The guide surface is complete: checker_start, checker_answer, and checker_tree cover starting, progressing through, and reasoning about the full decision tree. The enquiry surface is also complete: describe explains the process, fields provides the input schema, and submit_enquiry handles both validation and confirmed submission. No obvious dead ends or missing operations are apparent.