The whole decision tree
checker_treeEvery question, option and verdict of the CQC registration checker guide, for reasoning end to end.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
site
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5
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 content scope but not how the tree is returned, whether it is read-only, how large the payload is, or how the agent should traverse it. There is no mention of response format or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. It immediately conveys the complete scope of the tool ('Every question, option and verdict') and ends with its intended purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless tool, the description adequately states the tool's content scope and purpose. However, it lacks any indication of the output structure or how to consume the decision tree, and without an output schema or annotations, an agent may still be uncertain about what kind of response to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters and the schema has no properties, so there is no parameter information that the description must supplement. The description compensates by clarifying what the tool actually delivers, which is sufficient for a parameterless tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as containing the complete decision tree for the CQC registration checker, enumerating its contents as 'every question, option and verdict.' This distinguishes it from the sibling tools like checker_answer and checker_start, though it lacks an explicit operative verb like 'retrieve' or 'return.'
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'for reasoning end to end' implies that this tool is intended for whole-tree reasoning rather than stepwise interactions. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer checker_tree over checker_answer or checker_start, nor does it mention any exclusions or limitations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
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.
Naming Consistency3/5
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.
Tool Count5/5
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.
Completeness5/5
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.