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 provided, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the primary outcome (returning the next question or final verdict). However, it does not mention whether the answer is recorded, whether the call has side effects, or how invalid inputs are handled, leaving some behavioral gaps.
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 sentence with no filler; it front-loads the inputs and outcome. Every phrase earns its place, making it efficiently scannable for an agent.
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 with two parameters, and the description states the core return value. However, without an output schema, it does not clarify the structure of the returned question or final verdict, nor that the returned question should be fed back into this tool, so some inference is required.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description compensates by clarifying that 'question' is a question id and 'choice' is the chosen option's index. The mismatch between the parameter name 'question' and the phrase 'question id', plus the lack of format details, leaves some ambiguity, but the core semantics are conveyed.
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 uses a specific verb ('return') and identifies the resource (next question or final verdict) along with the required inputs (question id and chosen option). It clearly states the tool's behavior, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like checker_start 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 conditional 'Given a question id and the chosen option' clearly communicates when this tool should be invoked. It lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives, but for a linear question-answer flow the usage context is clear enough.
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 tools split into two clear clusters: the checker tools (start, answer, tree) each serve distinct roles in navigating the decision guide, and the enquiry tools (describe, fields, submit) cover explanation, schema, and submission. There is no functional overlap that would cause an agent to select the wrong tool.
All names use snake_case and are readable, but the conventions are mixed: checker_* uses a noun prefix with a trailing verb/noun, while submit_enquiry reverses the verb_noun pattern and enquiry_describe puts the domain before the verb. The inconsistency is noticeable but not chaotic.
Six tools is well-scoped for a site that combines an interactive decision guide and a form submission flow. Each tool earns its place and there is no excess or thinness.
The checker cluster fully covers the decision tree lifecycle (start, progress, inspect full tree), and the enquiry cluster fully covers explanation, schema discovery, and two-step consent-based submission. No critical dead ends or missing operations are evident for the stated purpose.