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. It does disclose the core behavior — returning either the next question or the final verdict — but it does not mention side effects, state changes, error handling, or behavior for invalid choices. The 'return' wording suggests a read-like operation, yet that safety is not explicit.
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. It states the inputs and the two possible outputs efficiently, and every phrase earns its place.
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 simple two-parameter tool, the description covers the main input and output behavior, but there is no output schema and no annotations to fill gaps. It leaves unclear what the final verdict or next question looks like, how to handle invalid choices, and whether calling this tool advances any session state. It is minimally viable but not fully self-sufficient.
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, and it does. It clarifies that 'question' is a question identifier and that 'choice' is the index of the chosen option, which adds meaning beyond the raw schema. It could be stronger by specifying the question id format or whether the choice is 0-based, but the core semantics are conveyed.
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 a specific operation: given a question id and a choice index, return the next question or the final verdict. It names the resource and the expected output, and the title reinforces the purpose. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like checker_start or checker_tree, so it falls short of a 5.
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: an agent should call this when the user has answered a question and needs the next step. There is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, nor any mention of alternatives such as checker_start or checker_tree. This is workable but relies on inference.
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: the checker_* tools handle guide traversal and full-tree reasoning, while enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields, and submit_enquiry separate documentation, metadata, and submission. There is no meaningful overlap that would cause an agent to pick the wrong tool.
The checker_* and enquiry_* prefixes help group the two workflows, but the pattern is not consistent: submit_enquiry breaks the enquiry_ prefix, and verb/noun ordering varies across tools like checker_start and submit_enquiry. The names are still readable and understandable.
Six tools is well-scoped for this server: three cover the decision guide lifecycle and three cover the enquiry submission workflow. Each tool earns its place with no obvious redundancy.
The set fully covers the interactive decision guide from start to verdict and the two-step enquiry submission with consent and confirmation. It also provides field metadata and a plain-language explainer, so no critical workflow step is missing.