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 must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly indicates a read-like operation ('return the next question or the final verdict') and reveals the two possible outcomes, but it does not disclose side effects, prerequisites, or error handling for invalid choices. The description adds some behavioral context beyond the title but omits important details.
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, well-structured sentence with the condition front-loaded and the result clearly stated. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.
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 tool is simple (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), and the description explains the core behavior, but it leaves gaps: the agent is not told the structure of the returned question/verdict, whether the 'question' parameter expects an ID string, or how to handle an invalid choice. It is minimally viable but not fully complete for an agent invoking it in an unfamiliar workflow.
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 for both parameters. It maps 'question' to a question id and 'choice' to a choice index, which provides partial meaning, but it does not clarify whether choice is zero-based or one-based, nor does it explain the relationship between the id and the question-answer flow. For a schema with zero coverage, this is minimal compensation.
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 specific action: given a question id and a chosen option, return the next question or the final verdict. This clearly conveys the tool's role in a question-answering flow and is distinguishable from siblings like checker_start (likely starts a flow) and checker_tree (likely shows structure).
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 in a sequential question-answering context but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives. It does not mention checker_start, checker_tree, or enquiry_describe, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the tool name alone.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct role: checker_start initializes the guide, checker_answer progresses through it, and checker_tree provides the full end-to-end map. Similarly, enquiry_describe explains the process, enquiry_fields supplies the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the submission. No two tools are easily confused.
Tool names are grouped by domain prefixes (checker_ and enquiry_), but the suffixes mix verbs and nouns (start, answer, tree, describe, fields) and submit_enquiry breaks the prefix pattern. This is readable and predictable but lacks a single consistent verb_noun convention.
With six tools, the set is well within the ideal range and appropriately sized for two connected functions: a decision guide and an enquiry submission flow. Each tool covers one necessary step without redundancy or bloat.
The checker tools cover the full interaction lifecycle: starting the guide, answering step-by-step, and viewing the entire tree. The enquiry tools cover explanation, field specification, and the two-step submission process, so there are no obvious gaps for the stated domain.