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 states the return type (next question or final verdict) but does not mention side effects, whether the answer is recorded, whether the choice index must be valid within a range, or what happens if the question id is invalid. The 'final verdict' detail is useful but incomplete for a state-changing operation.
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, compact sentence that front-loads the core behavior ('Given a question id and the chosen option... return the next question or final verdict'). Every word earns its place, and the sentence structure is clear and unambiguous.
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?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description leaves out important context: the valid range of choice indices, the semantics of the returned elements, and how this tool relates to the sibling tools checker_start and checker_tree. For a tool that likely progresses a multi-step workflow, more guidance is needed for correct invocation.
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 names 'question id' and 'choice index' but does not elaborate on their formats (e.g., is 'question' a UUID or human-readable ID?) or the constraints (choice minimum 0). Despite the low coverage, the description provides just enough mapping to the parameters, though it could be more explicit about expected input formats.
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 the tool's function: given a question id and a choice index, it returns the next question or final verdict. The verb 'return' and resource 'next question or final verdict' are specific, but it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tools checker_start and checker_tree. The title adds a helpful hint about the workflow.
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 in a quiz/checker flow (answer a question to advance), but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention any alternatives among the sibling tools. An agent would need to infer the context from the name and title alone.
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 groups: the checker guide tools (start, answer, tree) and the enquiry tools (describe, fields, submit). Within each group, every tool has a distinct purpose with no meaningful overlap.
All names are lowercase snake_case and use domain prefixes like checker_ and enquiry_, which helps. However, the relationship between prefix and action varies: checker_start and checker_tree are noun-like, enquiry_describe is object-verb, and submit_enquiry is verb-object, so the pattern is not fully consistent.
Six tools is well-scoped for this server: three support navigating the decision guide and three support the enquiry submission flow. Each tool earns its place without redundancy or bloat.
The surface covers the full user journey: start the guide, answer questions, inspect the whole tree, understand the enquiry process, see required fields, and submit with two-step confirmation. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated domain.