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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what is returned, but does not address whether answering mutates state, advances a workflow, requires prior steps, or has side effects—important context for an 'answer' action in a multi-step flow.
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?
A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core behavior and parameter roles without wasted words. It earns every word and is easy to parse quickly.
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 basic contract, but with no output schema or annotations it omits return structure, error behavior, and any dependence on prior steps like checker_start. Adequate but with clear gaps for an agent operating 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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by clarifying that 'question' is a question id (not the question text) and that 'choice' is an option index. This is essential semantic context beyond the bare schema, though it does not fully define how choices are derived or what id format is expected.
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 ('return the next question or the final verdict') on a clear resource (question + chosen option). It conveys the tool's purpose effectively and is distinguishable from its siblings by function (start vs tree vs answer), though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.
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 the condition under which this tool should be used, but it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it relates to checker_start and checker_tree. Usage is implied rather than stated.
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 distinct role: checker_start initializes the flow, checker_answer advances it, checker_tree provides the full decision guide, while enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields explain the form in two complementary ways and submit_enquiry handles submission. There is no meaningful overlap that would cause an agent to select the wrong tool.
The checker_* and enquiry_* prefixes impose some structure, and all names are lowercase snake_case. However, submit_enquiry breaks the prefix convention and enquiry_describe reverses the typical verb-object order, making the naming pattern less predictable than it could be.
Six tools is a well-scoped count for the server's purpose. Each tool maps to a necessary step in either the decision-guide workflow or the enquiry submission workflow, without superfluous additions.
The decision guide is fully covered with start, answer, and full-tree tools, while the enquiry workflow is covered end-to-end from description and fields through consent-based submission. There are no obvious missing operations that would block an agent from completing either workflow.