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 must fully disclose behavior, but it only states the function superficially. It doesn't mention side effects (e.g., whether answering is irreversible), required context (e.g., must be called after checker_start), or what the 'final verdict' implies for state changes.
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 and result. It is efficient and avoids redundancy, though it could be slightly more structured to mention key details like the necessity of prior context.
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 there is no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete for a tool that guides interactive flow. It doesn't describe possible return formats (e.g., next question vs. verdict), error conditions, or lifecycle requirements (e.g., must be started with checker_start). An agent might be left unsure how to interpret the response.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'choice' is an index and that 'question' is an ID, but it doesn't elaborate on how to choose a valid index or what the question ID should look like. This adds meaningful hints but leaves some ambiguity.
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 identifies a clear verb-resource relationship (answer a question, get the next step) and specifies the key inputs and outcome. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its sibling tools like checker_start or checker_tree, which might also involve question-related operations.
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 a step-by-step workflow (answering a question to progress), which suggests it should be used within an interactive session, but it doesn't state when to prefer this tool over checker_start or checker_tree. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are provided.
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, checker_answer, and checker_tree cover different aspects of the decision guide (initial step, stepwise traversal, full map), while enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields, and submit_enquiry cover the enquiry flow (overview, schema, submission). Even the two checker tools that both deal with questions are clearly separated as interactive navigation vs. complete reasoning tree.
All names use lowercase snake_case and are grouped by domain prefix (checker_ and enquiry_), which makes them easy to navigate. However, action placement is not fully uniform: checker_answer and enquiry_describe are noun-verb, while submit_enquiry is verb-noun, and checker_tree/enquiry_fields are noun-noun.
Six tools is well-scoped for the server's stated purpose: three tools for the interactive decision guide and three for the enquiry submission flow. Each tool earns its place, with no redundant or missing high-level operations.
The surface fully covers both workflows: navigating the decision guide from start to verdict, viewing the full guide structure, and submitting an enquiry with fields, consent, and confirmation tokens. No obvious dead ends or missing lifecycle operations are apparent.