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 carry the burden. It discloses the basic behavior (returns next question or verdict) but does not explain side effects, state changes, or whether answers are recorded persistently. It doesn't clarify if the same question id can be reused, if the choice index is zero-based (schema suggests minimum 0), or what happens on invalid input. The description is too thin to inform an agent about the tool's operational behavior.
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, front-loaded with the core action ('Given a question id and the chosen option...'). It is concise and to the point, earning its place. However, it could be more structured by naming the success/failure return cases explicitly, but for a short description it is efficient.
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 has 2 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description explains the purpose but not the full context: what does the agent need to know about the flow? For instance, does 'final verdict' mean success/failure? Are there multiple question types? Is the outcome deterministic? With no output schema and minimal behavioral disclosure, the description is incomplete for an agent to call this tool reliably in a multi-step workflow.
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 mentions 'question id' and 'chosen option (its choice index)', which maps directly to the 'question' and 'choice' parameters, adding context that the schema lacks (e.g., choice is an index, question is an id). However, it doesn't explain the format of the question id (e.g., is it a string like 'Q1' or a UUID?) or whether it's a reference from a previous response. Thus it adds some value but leaves gaps.
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 the final verdict'), and differentiates from siblings by mentioning question id and choice. However, it is slightly vague about what 'final verdict' means and doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like checker_tree or checker_start. The title adds some context but the description could be clearer about the tool's unique role.
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: after answering a question, use this to get the next step. But it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like checker_start or checker_tree. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios. The agent must infer the context from the tool name and sibling list, which is insufficient.
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 and enquiry tools form two clear groups, and within each group purposes are mostly distinct. One minor overlap exists: checker_answer returns the next question for a choice while checker_tree already contains the full decision graph, so an agent could use either to reason ahead.
The checker_ and enquiry_ prefixes make tool groups easily recognizable, and overall naming is readable. It is not perfectly uniform because checker_answer and checker_tree are noun-like while checker_start and submit_enquiry are verb-like, but the pattern is still predictable.
Six tools is well-scoped for this server: three cover the interactive decision guide and three cover the enquiry submission flow. Each tool serves a necessary role, and the count feels neither thin nor bloated.
The checker workflow is fully covered with start, answer, and full tree access, and the enquiry workflow is covered with descriptions, fields, and a two-step submission process. There are no obvious missing operations for the apparent scope of the server.