The whole decision tree
checker_treeEvery question, option and verdict of the EV charger checker guide, for reasoning end to end.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
site
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It conveys that the tool exposes static guide content, implying a read-only operation, but does not describe output shape, size, or whether the entire tree is returned at once. This is acceptable but not detailed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that communicates scope and intended use without filler. It is front-loaded with the key information that this is the complete decision tree.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless tool, the description is reasonably complete: it states the content scope and the reasoning purpose. It does not explain the output format, and there is no output schema, but the 'decision tree' concept sufficiently implies a structured representation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden. A baseline of 4 is appropriate because there is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool's resource: the complete EV charger checker decision tree, including every question, option, and verdict. It distinguishes itself from siblings like checker_answer and checker_start by emphasizing the 'whole' tree, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'return'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
'For reasoning end to end' provides a clear context for when to use the tool: when an agent needs the full guide rather than a single step/answer. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is evident enough from the wording.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
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.
Naming Consistency4/5
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.
Tool Count5/5
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.
Completeness5/5
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.