Skip to main content
Glama

check_manufacturability

Read-only

Measure a sequence against what a NAMED synthesis vendor publishes it can make: length, average and windowed GC, homopolymer runs, tandem repeats, long repeats and hairpin-forming inverted repeats.

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.
vendorNowhich vendor product to measure against. Each carries its own limits, and two vendors can honestly disagree about one sequence. Values: idt-gblocks (IDT gBlocks Gene Fragments), idt-eblocks (IDT eBlocks Gene Fragments), twist-clonal (Twist Bioscience Clonal Genes), twist-fragments (Twist Bioscience Gene Fragments).idt-gblocks
featureNomeasure a named feature of the open record instead of the whole thing — the insert you are about to order rather than the vector it sits in. Advanced.
_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.
sequenceNothe sequence to measure. Leave unset to use the open record, or the current selection when there is one.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
spansYesjust the spans of the exceeded limits, 0-based half-open, ready to draw on the map — the half of a finding a user cannot act on without
checkedYeshow many limits were graded. Read it beside `outside`: 0 of 4 and 0 of 7 are different answers, because vendors publish different numbers of limits
outsideYeshow many published limits this sequence exceeds — the number to branch a workflow on
profileYesthe vendor profile every verdict here was made against, including the page it was read from and the date — a threshold whose source is not stated is not checkable
readingYesthe report in words, generated from the findings: which limits are exceeded by how much, what could not be graded, and the standing qualification that published support is not a refusal policy
verdictYes`within` when every published limit is met, `outside` when any is exceeded. Not a prediction and not a refusal: it is whether the sequence sits inside the envelope the vendor publishes
findingsYesevery limit, met or not, with what this sequence measures, what the vendor publishes, and the span it is about where it has one
notGradedYeslimits the vendor publishes that this sequence could not be graded on, each with the reason. A 40 bp insert has no 50 bp GC window, and silence would make a shorter sequence look like a cleaner one
repeatScreensYesthe Synthesis Success Calculator's six published repeat-density screens (Halper, Hossain & Salis 2020), independent of vendor: each with its rule, whether it fires (null where it does not apply, as the 500 bp window under 1,000 bp), what was measured and the first span that tripped it. Rules from the literature, not a vendor's acceptance limits

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, local, non-mutating computation. The description adds that the assessment is vendor-specific and implicitly relative to each vendor's published limits, which is real context beyond the annotations. It does not say anything about scoring output, pass/fail semantics, or what happens when no sequence is supplied, so it does not clear the bar for a 4.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One sentence with the verb-and-scope front-loaded and the criteria list after the colon, so an agent gets the point in the first clause. The criteria enumeration is long but each item carries information and mirrors the checks performed. Slightly dense, with no wasted framing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile; what remains is to convey the tool's scope, which the description does precisely. The one gap is that it never connects the vendor limits to an actionable outcome, but with a full schema and output schema the definition is nearly self-sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description does add meaning by emphasizing that the vendor product is what defines the thresholds, reinforcing the enum's purpose rather than restating it. The enumerated measurement criteria also imply which sequence properties matter for the inputs without repeating schema text. It stops short of explaining the sequence/record/feature fallback trio, which is why it is not a 5.

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 gives a specific verb ("Measure") plus the exact resource and comparison basis (a sequence versus a named vendor's published synthesis limits), and enumerates the criteria checked: length, average and windowed GC, homopolymer runs, tandem repeats, long repeats, hairpin-forming inverted repeats. This clearly separates it from generic siblings like gc_content or check_scorpion_stem, which report a single property rather than a vendor-limit verdict.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase "what a NAMED synthesis vendor publishes it can make" implies this is a pre-order gate check, and the vendor enum values make the framing concrete. However, the description never states when to prefer this over adjacent tools such as design_gene_fragment_order, check_golden_gate_parts, or optimize_sequence, nor does it state any exclusion or prerequisite. Usage is inferable but not prescribed.

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