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 discloses the primary return behavior but stays silent on side effects, state progression, invalid choice handling, or permissions. Some transparency is present, but the absence of annotations leaves gaps.
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 input contract and output alternatives. No wasted words, though the title and description overlap slightly.
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 core call contract is present, but an agent is left to infer the workflow (how to obtain the question id, how to use the returned next question, what a verdict looks like) and there is no output schema to fill gaps.
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 provides only names/types (question string, choice integer). The description adds 'question id' and 'choice index', clarifying that question is an identifier and choice is an option index, but does not explain valid ranges, format of ids, or how to obtain them.
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?
States a specific behavior: takes a question id and a choice index, returns the next question or final verdict. It is distinct enough from the sibling checker tools, though it never names them.
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?
Usage is implied from the flow ('answer a question to get next step'), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs checker_start/checker_tree or note that it should be called after a question is obtained.
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 split cleanly into two distinct groups: the checker (start, answer, tree) for a decision guide and the enquiry (describe, fields, submit) for submitting an enquiry. Within each group, each tool has a clear, unique purpose with no overlapping functionality.
All names use snake_case and are mostly prefixed by their domain (checker_ or enquiry_). The only minor inconsistency is 'submit_enquiry' which puts the action first instead of the domain prefix, but it remains readable and predictable.
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose: three tools cover the decision guide lifecycle and three cover the enquiry submission process. Each tool earns its place, and the count is within the ideal 3-15 range.
The checker covers the full flow: start, step through answers, and view the entire tree. The enquiry covers all necessary steps: understand what it does, get field definitions, and submit with confirmation. There are no obvious missing operations or dead ends.