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 behavioral burden. It honestly discloses the core contract — submit an answer, receive the next question or verdict — but does not disclose statefulness, side effects, or how it fits into the broader check flow.
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 tight sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the action (answer a question). The clause 'or the final verdict' efficiently signals the terminal condition.
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 annotations and no output schema, the description gives enough to make a correct call but leaves the flow relationship to siblings implicit. An agent won't know when this tool ends the session versus checker_start/checker_tree, or what the 'final verdict' looks like.
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 coverage is 0%, and the description meaningfully compensates: it reveals that `question` is an identifier (not the question text) and that `choice` is an index into options. Format and range details for question IDs are left unspecified.
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 identifies the verb (return), the resource (next question or final verdict), and the required inputs (question id, choice index). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling checker tools, but the behavior is unmistakable.
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: you answer a question and get the next step. The description provides no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance relative to checker_start and checker_tree, so the agent must infer the tool's role in the flow.
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 checker tools and enquiry tools are clearly separated by purpose: start/answer/tree handle the decision guide flow, while describe/fields/submit handle the enquiry submission flow. Within each group, each tool has a distinct role with no meaningful overlap.
Most tools follow a clear domain-prefixed naming pattern: checker_start, checker_answer, checker_tree, enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields. The one deviation is submit_enquiry, which reverses the pattern, and checker_tree/enquiry_fields use nouns rather than verbs, but overall the naming remains predictable and readable.
Six tools is well-scoped for this server's two clear workflows: a decision-tree checker and an enquiry submission flow. Each tool serves a necessary function and none feel redundant.
The checker workflow has start, step-by-step progression, and full-tree access, covering all user reasoning paths. The enquiry workflow has description, field schema, and two-step submission with confirmation, leaving no obvious dead ends or missing steps.