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?
There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool can return either a next question or a final verdict, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention if the tool mutates any state (e.g., marks the question as answered), any required authentication, or potential errors like invalid question id. The description gives some behavioral context but not comprehensive.
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, concise sentence that directly states the function and key parameters. It front-loads the main purpose without any fluff or unnecessary detail. Every word 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?
Given the tool has only 2 simple parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete for basic usage. However, it doesn't explain what the returned 'next question' or 'final verdict' looks like—whether it's an object, string, etc. Without an output schema, this information could be important for the agent to handle the response correctly. Also, 'question' parameter being a string (possibly an id) is not explicitly clarified.
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. The description explicitly defines 'choice' as 'the chosen option (its `choice` index)', which adds meaning. However, 'question' is somewhat vague—it's implied to be a question id but the description doesn't clarify that. Since both parameters are mentioned, it adds some value but doesn't fully clarify all semantics.
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 clearly states the tool's function: given a question id and a chosen option, it returns the next question or final verdict. It identifies the specific verb 'return' and the resource 'next question or final verdict'. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like checker_start or checker_tree, which may also deal with questions and progression.
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 usage context: it's used when the agent has a question id and needs to submit an answer to progress. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like checker_start (presumably to start the survey) or checker_tree (maybe to view the question tree). The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.
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 tools are distinct: start begins, answer advances step-by-step, and tree provides the full decision graph for offline reasoning. The enquiry tools also separate concerns: describe explains semantics, fields provides schema, and submit performs the action. checker_tree and checker_answer overlap slightly in information content, but their intended uses are clearly differentiated.
The checker_* and enquiry_* prefixes create clear clusters, and the suffixes are mostly readable and predictable. submit_enquiry breaks the prefix pattern by placing the verb before the noun, and tree/fields are nouns while start/answer/describe are verbs, but the conventions are still coherent enough to navigate.
Six tools is a well-scoped count for a server covering two related workflows: decision-tree navigation and enquiry submission. Each tool serves a distinct and necessary step, with no redundancy or bloat.
The checker workflow is complete: start, step-by-step answering, and a full tree for end-to-end reasoning. The enquiry workflow is also complete: explanation, field schema, permission/consent handling, and two-step submission. There are no obvious dead ends or missing lifecycle steps for the stated domain.