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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the two return shapes (next question or final verdict) but stays silent on side effects, whether answers are recorded, prerequisites, error behavior, or whether the check is reset after the verdict. This is a significant gap for an interactive workflow tool.
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?
One sentence with no filler; the key constraint (given question and choice) is front-loaded and the result is stated compactly. The title reinforces the intent without duplicating the description verbatim.
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 (2 required params, no nested objects), and the description covers the main contract: input and result. But without an output schema and with sibling tools forming a workflow chain, the description lacks crucial context such as how a question id is obtained, what the final verdict looks like, and what happens if the pair is invalid.
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 adds meaning by clarifying that 'question' is an identifier and 'choice' is the index of the chosen option. However, it does not explain where the question id comes from, whether the indices are zero-based, or what valid choices look like.
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 clear verb ('return') and resource ('the next question or the final verdict'), and maps the inputs (question id, choice index) to the schema fields. It distinguishes the step-forward behavior from checker_start (likely initialization) and checker_tree (likely structure), though it does not name those siblings explicitly.
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 context is implied: when a user has answered a question with a question id and an option index, call this to advance. But there are no explicit when-to-use criteria, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as checker_tree or checker_start.
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 tool purposes are mostly distinct: checker_start begins the guide, checker_answer advances it, and checker_tree provides the full decision tree for reasoning. There is minor overlap between checker_answer and checker_tree, but the descriptions clarify their intended uses enough to avoid serious misselection.
Naming is readable but not fully consistent: checker tools use a checker_ prefix, while enquiry tools mostly use an enquiry_ prefix, and submit_enquiry reverses the pattern to verb_noun. The mixed orientation is understandable but lacks a single predictable convention.
With 6 tools covering two well-defined workflows—the landlord checker decision guide and the enquiry submission process—the count feels appropriately scoped. Each tool earns its place without redundancy or bloat.
The checker workflow is fully covered by start, answer, and tree, allowing both interactive and end-to-end reasoning. The enquiry workflow is also complete with describe, fields, and submit covering explanation, data collection, validation, consent, and submission.