Skip to main content
Glama

assemble_multiple_inserts

Open ONE circular backbone at several places and place several inserts in a single step. A complete digest at n sites leaves n arcs and n gaps between them, and every gap has to be filled for the ring to close; the arcs and the inserts go to the same homology assembler the single-insert tool uses, and which insert lands in which gap is read off each construct the homology graph closes rather than guessed. It designs no homology arm: an insert arrives with the ends it has, and a set whose ends do not meet the arcs is the assembler's own refusal.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
_filesNoThe project: record references shaped like _subject. Their records become library documents a tool names in sequences/parts/document; a trace or alignment is found by file name.
enzymesYesthe enzymes that open the backbone, by name (1409 in the cloning catalogue). Their sites ARE the insertion points, so two single-cutters give two of them; a name the catalogue does not carry is refused by name rather than ignored.
insertsYesthe fragments to place, one per insertion point — wire upstream `record` outputs here, or name library documents.
_subjectNoThe record to act on: exactly one of sequence, accession (+source), sample (an id from list_samples) or file ({name, text} or {name, base64}); record_index picks one record of several.
backboneNothe circular vector to open. Leave unset to use the open record.
max_constructsNocap on how many distinct constructs are enumerated. Advanced.
max_homology_bpNolongest terminal homology considered; the bound is EXCLUSIVE, as upstream's own range is. In bp.
min_homology_bpNominimum terminal homology for two ends to join. In bp.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
arcsYesthe backbone's arcs: their lengths and the enzyme that made each end — the insertion points, made readable
recordYesthe first construct, as a record
readingYeswhat was planned, generated from the enumeration rather than the request
cutCountsYessites found per enzyme, so an enzyme that does not cut is named rather than silently absent
placementsYesevery construct the ring closes on, each with the inserts in the order they sit around it
insertionPointsYeshow many gaps the digest left, which is how many inserts the step takes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavior: arcs and inserts are routed to the same homology assembler as the single-insert tool, insert-to-gap assignment is determined by the homology graph rather than guessed, and no homology arms are designed. It also explains the refusal condition when insert ends do not match the arcs.

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 front-loaded with the core action and remains compact for a complex operation. Each sentence contributes either mechanism, routing behavior, or a failure condition, with no redundant restatement.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the presence of annotations, a complete input schema, and an output schema, the description provides enough mechanism and constraint information for correct invocation. It does not need to explain return values or repeat parameter documentation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameter descriptions already carry the main semantics. The description adds conceptual context about multi-site assembly and automatic insert assignment, but it does not add parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: open one circular backbone at several sites and place several inserts in one step. It explicitly contrasts the approach with the single-insert tool, so an agent can distinguish it from related assembly tools.

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?

It clearly frames the relevant scenario: a complete digest at multiple sites creates matching arcs and gaps that must be filled by the inserts. It also states a key constraint, namely that insert ends must meet the arcs or the assembler will refuse, but it does not explicitly enumerate when to choose this over named alternatives.

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.

Resources