retirement-answer-check
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {
"listChanged": false
} |
| prompts | {
"listChanged": false
} |
| resources | {
"subscribe": false,
"listChanged": false
} |
| experimental | {} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| check_answerA | Check an AI-drafted answer to a US retirement-account question before it is sent to a customer. Verifies numbers and rules (contribution limits, RMDs, rollovers, early-distribution tax and exceptions, excess contributions) against IRS-sourced facts, flags out-of-scope topics, and runs phrase rules for personal recommendations and promissory claims. Returns {"decision": "SEND" | "REVIEW", "flags": [{"type", "span", "reason", "source"}]}. Any number the facts table can't verify returns REVIEW, never SEND. The phrase rules are a baseline only: also run the advice-judge skill before treating SEND as final. Args: question: The customer's question, verbatim. answer: The AI-drafted answer to check, verbatim. An empty answer returns REVIEW. |
| get_factsA | Return the full IRS-sourced facts table the checker verifies against. Includes contribution limits by tax year, RMD rules, rollover rules, early-distribution tax and exceptions, and the source URL for every entry, plus the date the values were verified. Use it to show a reviewer why a number was flagged. Takes no arguments. |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools have completely distinct roles: check_answer performs the validation, while get_facts provides supporting reference data. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case: check_answer and get_facts. The naming is predictable and clearly indicates each tool's action.
Two tools is borderline minimal, but the server's purpose is narrow and focused. The pair is sufficient for the stated workflow, though it feels slightly thin compared to typical servers.
The core workflow is covered: check an answer and retrieve the facts used for verification. The only minor gap is the absence of tools to manage or update the facts table, but that appears outside the server's intended scope.