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 mentions the return value ('next question or final verdict') but does not disclose whether the answer is recorded, whether state changes, whether calls are idempotent, or any side effects of answering.
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, focused sentence with no redundant phrases. It front-loads the core behavior and avoids unnecessary detail.
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 tool with no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, the description is too sparse. It leaves unclear the exact input format, side effects, response structure, and how this fits into the broader checker flow alongside siblings like checker_start and checker_tree.
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 adds useful meaning by identifying 'question' as a question id and 'choice' as the option index. However, it does not explain the format of the question id, how to obtain valid values, or the expected range of choice beyond the schema's minimum of 0.
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 clearly states the action: given a question and a choice index, return the next question or final verdict. It identifies the resource and expected output, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like checker_start or checker_tree.
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 phrase 'Given a question id and the chosen option' implies use after a question has been presented and an option selected. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, nor any exclusions or alternative routing.
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 tool set splits cleanly into two domains: the Malta VAT registration checker flow (start, answer, tree) and the enquiry form (describe, fields, submit). Each tool has a distinct role with no meaningful overlap, so an agent can reliably select the right one.
Most tools follow a clear resource_prefix + action pattern, such as checker_start, checker_answer, enquiry_describe, and enquiry_fields. The main deviation is submit_enquiry, which reverses the word order, but the naming remains readable and predictable overall.
Six tools is a well-scoped set for the server's purpose: three for the checker decision guide and three for the enquiry workflow. Each tool earns its place and there is no bloat or missing scaffolding.
The checker tools fully cover the decision guide lifecycle: start, step through answers, and inspect the entire tree. The enquiry tools cover discovery, schema, and two-step confirmation submission, leaving no obvious dead ends in the intended workflow.