Start: Employer change checker
checker_startThe first question of the Employer change checker decision guide.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
checker_startThe first question of the Employer change checker decision guide.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only says this is the first question of a guide, offering no detail about whether the call is read-only, starts a session, or what the response contains. This is a significant gap for an agent deciding to invoke it.
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 clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and is 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?
Although the tool is simple, there is no output schema and no description of what the tool returns or how it fits with the sibling decision-guide tools. An agent is left without information on what to expect after calling it or how to proceed, making the description incomplete.
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 tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. A baseline of 4 is appropriate; the description need not add parameter information.
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 the tool as the first question of the Employer change checker decision guide, which is a specific resource and role. It is not a tautology, but it does not differentiate from siblings like checker_answer or 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 phrase 'first question' implies this tool is the entry point to the decision guide, but there is no explicit statement about when to use it versus the sibling tools. The usage context is only implied, not clearly specified.
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_* groups are clearly separated by domain, and within each group the tools serve distinct purposes: start, tree, and answer are interactive versus reference, while describe, fields, and submit map to explanation, schema, and action. The only slight ambiguity is between checker_answer and checker_tree, since both can determine next steps, but their intended usage contexts are different enough.
Tools use consistent snake_case and group prefixes: checker_* and enquiry_*. However, the verb/noun ordering varies: checker_start and checker_answer are noun-verb, checker_tree and enquiry_fields are noun-noun, and submit_enquiry is verb-noun. This is a minor deviation rather than chaotic mixing.
Six tools is well-scoped for the server's two clear workflows: an interactive decision guide and an enquiry submission flow. Each tool earns its place with no obvious redundancy or bloat.
The checker workflow is complete with a starting point, full tree, and step-by-step traversal. The enquiry workflow covers explanation, schema, and validated two-step submission with consent handling, so there are no obvious dead ends or missing operations.