Answer application questions
Submits answers to the non-identity application questions read from getBankingApplication. Call as many times as needed; each call merges.
Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| details | Yes | The answers to submit, keyed by the field names `getBankingApplication` reported as outstanding. | |
| auth_token | No | Laso credential. Only if the MCP connection has no Authorization header. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'submits' (mutation) and that calls 'merge' – useful context. However, it does not disclose side effects such as whether questions become marked answered, how invalid answers are handled, or what response is returned. The 'Free.' note is ambiguous and adds no behavioral clarity.
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 short and front-loaded with the purpose. However, the 'Free.' line is cryptic and appears to add no value, which prevents a perfect score. Otherwise, it is efficient and free of redundancy.
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 only two parameters (one nested) and no output schema, the description is adequate. It explains what 'details' contains and references the source tool. It does not mention error handling or response format, but those are not essential for this simple submission tool given the schema's clarity.
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 100% and both parameters have descriptive comments. The 'details' parameter description explicitly ties it to field names from getBankingApplication, adding meaning beyond the bare parameter name. The auth_token is also explained. This exceeds the baseline of 3 for full coverage.
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 it submits answers to non-identity application questions sourced from getBankingApplication. This distinguishes it from siblings like submit_banking_application (which likely submits the whole application) and get_banking_application (which reads questions). The verb 'submits' and resource are explicit.
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?
It provides practical guidance: 'Call as many times as needed; each call merges.' This tells the agent it can be invoked multiple times and that calls combine rather than overwrite. It references the source tool for context, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like submit_banking_application, which would make it a 5.
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.