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 burden. It clarifies that the tool both returns the next question and may give a final verdict, which is useful, but it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether state is mutated or if this checks an answer in a backend system). The safety profile is unknown, and the description adds partial behavioral insight.
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 one concise sentence that front-loads the input (question id and choice) and the output (next question or final verdict). It contains no fluff and every word contributes meaning.
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?
The tool has no output schema, so the description must indicate return shape. It does say 'return the next question or the final verdict', which hints at the response, but it does not explain edge cases (e.g., invalid question id, out-of-range choice, or when exactly a final verdict occurs). Given the simplicity of a two-parameter tool, it is minimally complete but has gaps in return-value details.
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. It explains that 'choice' is the index of the selected option, which adds meaning beyond the bare schema, but it does not clarify the format of 'question' (e.g., is it an ID string, a question text?) nor the exact range/meaning of 'choice' beyond minimum 0. With two required parameters and zero schema descriptions, this is a notable gap.
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 names a specific action ('answer a question... return the next question or the final verdict') on a clear resource (question/choice pair), which differentiates it somewhat from typical list/start tools. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it does not fully distinguish from checker_start or checker_tree, but the core purpose is clear.
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 description implies usage for progressing through a quiz or decision tree, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus checker_start or checker_tree. It gives the essential context (choose an option by its choice index) but lacks exclusionary guidance or alternatives.
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 tools split cleanly into two workflows: the interactive checker (start, answer, tree) and the enquiry form (describe, fields, submit). Within each group, every tool has a distinct role, and the tree tool is clearly framed as the full end-to-end view rather than a step-by-step interaction.
Most tools follow a clear domain prefix pattern: checker_* and enquiry_*, with lowercase snake_case names. submit_enquiry breaks the prefix convention slightly, but it is still a plain verb_noun name and easily understood, so the overall pattern remains predictable.
Six tools is well-scoped for a site with two core features: a decision guide and a contact/enquiry flow. Each tool covers a necessary step without redundancy or bloat.
The checker workflow is complete with start, step-by-step navigation, and the full tree for end-to-end reasoning. The enquiry workflow is also complete with an overview, field schema, and a two-step consent-aware submission process, leaving no obvious dead ends.