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 present, so the description must carry the burden. It describes the core return behavior but does not disclose whether the answer is recorded, whether any state changes, or how invalid inputs are handled.
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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff; the title reinforces the purpose.
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 is simple and the description covers the essential input/output, but without an output schema it leaves the exact return shape of a 'next question' or 'final verdict' unspecified, and no error or terminal-state details are given.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds crucial semantics: question is an id and choice is the zero-based index (minimum 0) among options. This goes beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't define the id format.
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?
States a specific action (answer), the input (question id and choice index), and the output (next question or final verdict). This clearly differentiates from siblings like checker_start/checker_tree.
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 establishes the condition for use — when you have a question id and a chosen option — but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it.
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 checker_* and enquiry_* prefixes cleanly separate the two workflows. Within each group, start, answer, and tree have distinct roles, and describe, fields, and submit are clearly different operations with minimal overlap.
All names use a consistent snake_case format and clear domain prefixes (checker_, enquiry_). However, the pattern is not strictly verb_noun: checker_tree and enquiry_fields are noun-based while others are verb-oriented.
Six tools is a well-scoped set for a site with two focused workflows: a decision-tree checker and an enquiry submission flow. Each tool serves a distinct purpose and none feel redundant or excessive.
The checker tools cover starting, navigating, and inspecting the full decision guide, and the enquiry tools cover explanation, schema discovery, and the full two-step consent submission process. No obvious dead ends or missing lifecycle steps for the stated domain.