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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation (returns next question or final verdict) but doesn't disclose side effects, whether answers are recorded, what happens on invalid choice indexes, or whether this advances a persistent state in the checker flow.
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 wasted words, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It's concise and readable, though it could use a second sentence for usage context.
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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It doesn't explain the stateful flow (the title mentions 'next step'), what happens at the final question, how errors are surfaced, or how this tool relates to checker_start and checker_tree.
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 compensate. It explains 'choice' as the chosen option's index and 'question' as the question id, which adds some meaning beyond the bare schema (integer minimum 0, string minLength 1). But it doesn't clarify what an invalid question id does, what the expected format of the question id is, or what values of choice.map are valid.
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 specific verb ('return') and resource (next question or final verdict), and identifies the two inputs (question id and chosen option). However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like checker_start or checker_tree, and the name 'checker_answer' plus title 'Answer a question, get the next step' are only slightly expanded by the description.
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 a sequential flow (answer a question, get the next step) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of checker_start or checker_tree, and no mention of prerequisites or conditions.
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 set separates cleanly into a decision-guide workflow (checker_start, checker_answer) and an enquiry workflow (enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields, submit_enquiry). Each tool has a single clear job, and the descriptions resolve any possible confusion between explaining the enquiry and providing its field schema.
All names are lowercase snake_case and use domain prefixes such as checker_ and enquiry_, which keeps them readable. The action style is inconsistent, though: checker_start and enquiry_describe put the verb last, submit_enquiry puts it first, and enquiry_fields is a noun phrase rather than an action.
The set is well-scoped for its stated purpose: two tools cover the checker decision tree and three cover the enquiry submission flow. Each tool earns its place, and the count is comfortably within the ideal range.
The checker workflow is covered end to end from the first question through to a final verdict, and the enquiry workflow is covered from explanation and field discovery through the two-step consent-based submission. There are no obvious missing operations that would leave an agent in a dead end.