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, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the return behavior but does not clarify whether answering records state, mutates the checker session, or is purely read-only. The word 'answer' suggests possible side effects, which are left undisclosed.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause adds necessary information about input and output, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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 core input and output contract is present, and the tool is small enough that this may suffice. However, with no output schema, the description could do more to explain how an agent distinguishes a returned question from a final verdict, and what happens on invalid choices or question ids.
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 does identify 'question' as a question id and 'choice' as the chosen option's index, but it does not explain the format of the question id, how choice indexes are derived, or what values are valid beyond the schema's minimum constraints.
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 a choice index, return either the next question or the final verdict. This clearly distinguishes it from starting a checker (checker_start) or tree browsing, though it does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives.
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 use after a question has been presented and a choice is available, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not mention how this differs from sibling tools. An agent must infer the appropriate context.
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 six tools split cleanly into two groups: checker_* for the decision guide and enquiry_* for the submission flow. Each tool has a unique purpose—starting, answering, or viewing the tree versus describing, listing fields, or submitting—with no overlap or ambiguity.
All tools use lowercase snake_case and a domain prefix (checker_ or enquiry_), but the second part mixes verbs (start, describe, submit) and nouns (answer, tree, fields). The pattern is not uniformly verb_noun, though it is readable and predictable within each domain.
With six tools, the server is tightly scoped to two related workflows—a decision guide and an enquiry form. This is well within the ideal 3–15 range, and each tool is necessary for its respective flow.
The checker covers start, step-by-step progression, and full tree access; the enquiry covers documentation, field schema, and a two-step submission with consent. No obvious gaps exist for the stated purposes—a user can complete both workflows end to end using these tools.