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 does disclose the key outcome: the tool returns the next question or the final verdict. However, it does not explain whether invoking it records the answer, advances state irreversibly, or what happens on invalid input—gaps that matter for a tool whose title says '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, tightly worded sentence with no filler. The key inputs and outputs are front-loaded, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's behavior.
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 captures the essential I/O: question id plus choice yields next question or final verdict. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves out the return format, error behavior, and the relationship to checker_start/checker_tree, so the agent is left to infer broader context.
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 add meaning to the parameters. It does add useful semantics: the string parameter is a question id and the integer is a choice index. It does not explain how to obtain a valid question id or clarify the structure of the 'next question' return value, but the basic parameter roles are made clear.
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 choice index, return the next question or final verdict. This clearly identifies the tool's role in a question/answer flow. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like checker_start or checker_tree, but the verb 'answer' and resource 'question' make the purpose distinct enough.
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 phrase 'Given a question id and the chosen option' implies usage after a question has been presented, and the title 'Answer a question, get the next step' provides context. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives such as checker_start or checker_tree.
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.
The checker tools are separated by interactive progression (start/answer) versus full-tree reasoning, and the enquiry tools cleanly separate documentation, schema, and submission. The only mild overlap is that checker_tree also contains all questions and verdicts, so an agent could use it to bypass the step-by-step tools.
All names are snake_case and grouped by domain prefix (checker_*, enquiry_*), but word order and parts of speech are mixed: checker_start and checker_answer are imperative, checker_tree and enquiry_fields are nouns, enquiry_describe is object-verb, and submit_enquiry is verb-object. This is readable but not a consistent pattern.
Six tools are well-scoped for the two workflows: three for the eligibility decision guide and three for the enquiry submission process. No tool feels redundant or missing at the count level.
The decision guide has start, step-through, and full-tree coverage, while the enquiry flow has a describe-first explanation, field schema, and a two-step submission with confirmation token. There are no obvious dead ends for the stated purpose.