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 provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the operation is a lookup/return but does not mention whether the action has side effects, requires authentication, or is part of a stateful flow. The description also doesn't indicate what happens on invalid input or whether the 'return' is purely 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 compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action (return next question or verdict) and includes the key input parameters, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic operation but lacks crucial context: it doesn't mention that this is part of a sequence (likely after checker_start), how the returned next question is formatted, or what the final verdict looks like. An agent might call it in the wrong order or misinterpret the response.
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 modest meaning by clarifying that 'question' is an id and 'choice' is an index. However, it doesn't explain what the question id refers to, what the choice index indexes into (e.g., an array of options from a previous question), or any constraints beyond the schema's minimum 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 uses a specific verb ('return') and identifies the resource ('the next question or the final verdict'), clearly stating what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like checker_start or checker_tree, which could be confused as similar navigation steps.
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 when to use the tool (after receiving a question, choose an option to advance) but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. There is no guidance about prerequisites, such as needing to call checker_start first, which an agent would benefit from knowing.
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 workflows: the Exit readiness checker (start, answer, tree) and the Sellable Score enquiry (describe, fields, submit). Even the closest pair, enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields, are clearly separated by purpose: one explains the workflow, the other defines the input schema.
Tools consistently use snake_case and meaningful domain prefixes: checker_* and enquiry_*. However, there is no uniform verb_noun pattern: checker_start, checker_tree and enquiry_fields are noun-like, while submit_enquiry is verb-first and checker_answer is ambiguous between noun and command.
Six tools is well-scoped for a server covering two distinct features: a decision guide and an enquiry form. Each tool has a clear role and none feel redundant or unnecessary.
The checker workflow is fully covered: start, navigate with answers, and access the full decision tree. The enquiry workflow is also complete: describe the process, provide fields, and submit in a two-step confirmation flow with consent and token handling.