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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a two-state outcome (next question or final verdict), which is useful, but it does not explain side effects, state transitions, or how the question id relates to the overall 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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. The title adds a bit of redundancy, but the description itself is appropriately compact for a tool with two parameters.
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?
Given the presence of sibling tools (checker_start, checker_tree) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how this tool fits into the broader checker workflow, how results should be interpreted, or how to handle branching logic.
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 clarifies that 'question' is a question id (not arbitrary text) and that 'choice' is the index of the selected option. This adds real meaning beyond the raw schema types, though it could specify how to obtain valid values.
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 clear action ('return the next question or the final verdict') with a specific resource (question/verdict), making the tool's purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish the tool from siblings like checker_start and checker_tree, which share the same domain and likely similar workflows.
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 an interactive Q&A workflow but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus checker_start or checker_tree. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., where the question id comes from) and provides no exclusions or alternatives.
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 are clearly separated by role: start begins the flow, answer progresses it, and tree provides the full decision structure. The enquiry tools are equally distinct: describe explains the process, fields defines inputs, and submit_enquiry performs the submission.
Tools mostly follow a clear prefix-based pattern: checker_* for the decision guide and enquiry_* for the enquiry flow. submit_enquiry deviates slightly from the noun-prefix style, but the naming remains predictable and readable.
Six tools is well-scoped for the two workflows the server supports. Each tool represents a necessary step or resource without redundant or superfluous entries.
The checker workflow covers start, progression, and full tree visibility, leaving no dead ends in the decision guide. The enquiry workflow covers context, field definitions, validation, consent confirmation, and final submission, making the surface complete for its stated purpose.