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 reveals the return shape (next question or verdict) but does not disclose whether submitting an answer mutates or advances the flow state, whether it is reversible, or what happens on invalid question ids or out-of-range choice indices.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that states inputs first ('Given a question id and the chosen option') then output ('return the next question or the final verdict'). There is zero filler and every word earns its place.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin for a tool embedded in a multi-step workflow. It omits where question ids originate, how options map to choice indices, whether answers are permanently recorded, and error behavior—covering only the bare input/output contract.
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%, and the description compensates by giving meaning to both parameters: 'question' is labeled a question id, and 'choice' is clarified as the chosen option's index. This adds semantics beyond the bare string/integer schema, though it does not state where the option indices come from.
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 action and resource: given a question id and a chosen option index, return the next question or final verdict. This clearly identifies the tool's function, and the name 'checker_answer' together with the action distinguishes it from checker_start at a glance, though it never explicitly names or contrasts with siblings.
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?
Usage context is implied: the title 'Answer a question, get the next step' suggests this is the step taken after receiving a question in the checker flow. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives like checker_tree, and no exclusions or prerequisites.
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 cleanly separated into start, step-by-step answer, and full tree view, while the enquiry_* tools cover description, schema, and submission. No two tools appear to do the same thing.
The tools use useful domain prefixes (checker_ and enquiry_), but the word order is inconsistent: checker_answer, checker_start, and enquiry_describe are object+verb, while submit_enquiry is verb+object, and checker_tree and enquiry_fields are object+noun. The convention is readable but not uniform.
Six tools is well-scoped for the server's purpose: three support the decision guide flow and three support the enquiry submission flow. Each tool has a clear role and none feel redundant.
The tool surface fully covers the decision guide lifecycle (start, answer, full tree) and the enquiry lifecycle (describe, fields, submit with two-step confirmation). No obvious operations are missing for the stated domain.