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 explains the return value but does not state whether answering records state, advances a session, has side effects, or requires any particular authorization. This is a meaningful gap for a tool named 'answer'.
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 sentence with no filler and no repetition of schema details. It front-loads the core behavior and keeps the necessary context tight.
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 two-parameter tool, the description captures the basic input/output flow adequately. However, without an output schema, it does not describe the structure of the returned 'next question' or 'final verdict', nor does it clarify whether the operation mutates state. These are notable gaps for an agent trying to call it correctly in a multi-step flow.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description usefully maps `question` to a question id and `choice` to the selected option's index. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema types, though it does not clarify how valid choice values are determined or what happens with an invalid choice.
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 the tool's function: given a question id and a chosen option index, it returns the next question or the final verdict. It is specific enough to distinguish the action from checker_start and checker_tree, though it does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings, nor any mention of prerequisites such as starting a session first. The inputs are implied, but the agent is left to infer the appropriate call 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 unique role: checker_start initializes the guide, checker_answer advances it, and checker_tree exposes the full decision tree. On the enquiry side, enquiry_describe explains the process, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the submission. There is no meaningful overlap between tools.
Tool names consistently use snake_case and workflow prefixes (checker_ vs enquiry_), which makes grouping easy. However, the grammatical pattern varies: some are noun-led (checker_answer, checker_tree), some verb-led (checker_start, submit_enquiry), and enquiry_describe/enquiry_fields mix the two. This is a minor deviation rather than a chaotic naming scheme.
Six tools is well-scoped for the server's two linked workflows: navigating an eligibility decision guide and submitting a Business Grants Finder enquiry. Each tool earns its place, and there is no redundancy or excessive split.
The checker surface provides start, step-by-step navigation, and full tree visibility, while the enquiry surface covers process explanation, field schema, and the two-step consent-based submission. Together they cover the full user journey from eligibility assessment to enquiry submission with no obvious dead ends.