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 full disclosure burden. It discloses the return behavior (next question or final verdict) but does not state that submitting a choice advances or mutates the check state, whether answers are reversible, or how invalid indices are handled. For a flow-advancing tool, this is a notable omission.
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 21-word sentence with no filler. The conditional structure ('Given X and Y, return Z') front-loads the essential input-output contract and every clause earns its place.
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?
With no output schema or annotations, the description should carry workflow context; it hints at a sequence (answer → next question or verdict) but never states that a check must be started via `checker_start`, how the returned question relates to prior ones, or what a final verdict contains. Adequate for a simple invocation, but incomplete for navigating a multi-tool 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%, and the description compensates by defining `question` as a question id and `choice` as the index of the chosen option. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema properties (string, integer with minimum 0), though it does not explain where valid options come from or what an invalid index yields.
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. It clearly identifies the resource (the answer step of a check) and its role in a flow, though it never explicitly names the siblings it differs from.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of `checker_start` or `checker_tree`. An agent must infer that answering happens after a check has been started, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or references to 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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct role: checker_start begins the guide, checker_answer advances it, and checker_tree provides the full map for reasoning. The enquiry tools are similarly separated into describe, fields, and submit, with no meaningful overlap.
The two prefixes checker_ and enquiry_ create clear grouping, but suffix patterns vary: start/answer are verbs while tree is a noun, and describe/fields/submit mix verb and noun forms. This is readable but not fully consistent.
Six tools is well-scoped for the server's two purposes: a decision guide and an enquiry submission flow. Each tool is necessary and none feel redundant.
The checker workflow is fully covered with start, step-by-step answer, and full tree access. The enquiry flow is also complete, including field metadata, explanation, and the two-step consent-confirmed submission process.