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 states the high-level result (next question or final verdict), but it does not disclose side effects, state changes, error behavior for invalid question IDs or choices, or whether the operation is read-only.
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, tight sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core behavior and immediately communicates the input-to-output relationship.
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 two-parameter state-transition tool, the description is mostly adequate: it names both inputs and the two possible outcomes. Yet it omits error handling, invalid-input behavior, and how the question id or choice options are obtained, which leaves some ambiguity for an agent.
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 explains that 'question' is a question id and 'choice' is the chosen option's index, which adds useful meaning. However, it does not clarify what format the question id takes or how choices are obtained.
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 verb and resource: given a question id and a choice index, it returns the next question or final verdict. It is specific enough to identify the tool's role, though it does not explicitly contrast it with 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 description implies usage after a question has been presented and a choice selected, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus checker_start or checker_tree. No alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisite steps are mentioned.
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 tools are cleanly split into two domains: the checker decision guide (start, answer, tree) and the enquiry submission flow (describe, fields, submit). Each tool has a distinct role with no overlapping responsibilities, so an agent can easily select the right one.
Most names follow a noun_prefix pattern (checker_*, enquiry_*) but the verb placement varies: checker_start and checker_answer are noun-verb, while enquiry_describe is noun-verb and submit_enquiry is verb-noun. Slight inconsistency but still readable and predictable within each group.
Six tools is an appropriate scope for a focused site: three for the interactive guide and three for the enquiry workflow. No redundancy and no missing obvious operations, each tool earns its place.
The tool surface fully covers the stated purpose: the checker guide can be traversed (start, answer, tree) and the enquiry flow is complete (describe, fields, submit). There are no dead ends or missing lifecycle steps for either workflow.