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 must fully disclose behavior. It states what the tool returns ('the next question or the final verdict') but does not mention any side effects (e.g., whether the answer is recorded, whether this advances a persistent session), the state requirements (e.g., whether the question must come from a started session), or error behavior. For a tool that returns state-dependent results, this is a significant gap.
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 one concise sentence that front-loads the core behavior (what to provide, what to expect). No filler or redundancy.
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?
For a simple two-parameter tool without an output schema, the description covers the basic input and output flow. However, the absence of usage context (starting a flow, validity of choices, handling of final verdicts) and lack of behavioral transparency (whether this is stateless) leaves an agent with reasonable but incomplete information. Given the tool's simplicity, this is borderline adequate.
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%, so the description must explain the parameters. It identifies that 'choice' is the chosen option via its 'choice' index, but it does not specify that 'question' is the question ID (it says 'question id' only in prose, not explicitly that the field is an ID), nor does it define the value range of 'choice' beyond the schema's minimum 0. The description adds some meaning but leaves ambiguity about the exact nature of the 'question' parameter.
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 the final verdict. It names the specific resources ('question id', 'choice') and the resource (question-answer flow) it operates on, which is clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like checker_start or checker_tree beyond the general flow context.
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 the context of use: during a question-answering sequence, after the user has selected an option. It does not mention when not to use it or direct to alternatives like checker_start (likely to begin) or checker_tree (likely to view the question tree). The intended use is reasonably inferable but not explicitly contrasted with siblings.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct role: checker_start/answer/tree cover the decision guide's entry, traversal, and full model, while enquiry_describe/fields/submit_enquiry cover documentation, schema, and submission. No two tools appear to do the same thing.
Most tools follow a domain-prefixed pattern (checker_*, enquiry_*), which makes grouping obvious. submit_enquiry breaks the pattern by leading with the verb instead of the domain, but the naming remains understandable and mostly consistent.
Six tools is a compact, well-scoped set for a two-part workflow: the decision guide and the enquiry submission flow. Each tool has a clear purpose and none feels redundant.
The decision guide is fully covered with start, step-wise answer, and full tree access, and the enquiry flow documents the process, fields, and two-step submission. A status-check or retrieval tool for submitted enquiries would be a minor gap, but the core workflow has no dead ends.