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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals only the high-level return outcome and does not state whether the answer is recorded, whether the operation is stateful or repeatable, or how invalid inputs are handled.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes: the input, the operation, and the expected outcome are all stated efficiently.
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 description provides the essential contract: input and high-level output. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves the response shape unspecified and does not clarify how to distinguish a next-question response from a final verdict or what happens on invalid input.
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%, yet the description meaningfully explains both parameters: 'question' is described as a question id and 'choice' as the chosen option's index. This adds real semantic value beyond the raw schema, though it could be more explicit about indexing conventions and id format.
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 index, return the next question or the final verdict. This is clear and distinguishes the tool as a step-by-step checker traversal, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings 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 usage context is implied: call this when you have a question id and a choice index and need the next step. However, it does not mention when not to use it or how it differs from checker_start/checker_tree, leaving alternatives unaddressed.
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.
checker_start/answer/tree are distinguished by entry, traversal, and full-tree access, while enquiry_describe/fields/submit cover explanation, schema, and submission. There is slight conceptual overlap between checker_answer and checker_tree, but the descriptions clearly separate step-by-step navigation from end-to-end reasoning.
Tools are grouped by two prefixes—checker_ and enquiry_—but there is no consistent verb_noun rule: checker_start and checker_answer are verbs while checker_tree is a noun, and enquiry_describe/enquiry_fields mix verb and noun with submit_enquiry reversing the prefix pattern. The names remain readable and groupable, so this is a moderate consistency issue.
Six tools is a well-scoped number for the site's purpose: three support the decision guide and three support the enquiry form/submission flow. No tool feels redundant or missing at the aggregate level.
The decision guide is fully covered with start, answer, and full-tree tools, and the enquiry flow has explanation, field-schema, and a two-step submit/confirm tool. There are no obvious dead ends for the advertised workflows.