Skip to main content
Glama

convert_mass_moles

Read-only

Convert a mass of a molecule to an amount in moles and a number of molecules, or an amount back to a mass.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
massNothe mass to convert. Leave it or `amount` empty: the empty one is calculated.
_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.
amountNothe amount in moles to convert. Leave it or `mass` empty.
strandsNowhich strands of the open record to weigh. From the record weighs both strands of DNA and the one strand of an RNA (U and no T); choose one strand for an oligo. Values: record (From the record), double (Both strands), single (One strand). Only applies when molecular_weight is not given.record
_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.
mass_unitNothe unit of the mass, given or solved.ng
amount_unitNothe unit of the amount, given or solved.pmol
molecular_weightNog/mol. Leave empty to weigh the open record from its sequence; give it for a molecule that is not open. In g/mol. Advanced.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
massYesthe mass, in its unit
amountYesthe amount in moles, in its unit
copiesYesnumber of molecules
molecularWeightYesthe weight used

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The readOnlyHint and non-destructive annotations already establish the safety profile, and the description adds that conversion works in both directions and yields molecule count. It does not disclose the calculation model, defaults, or how the open record and molecular weight interact, which are left to the schema.

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 definition is a single well-formed sentence with no filler, and the core conversion behavior is front-loaded. Nothing in the sentence could be removed without losing the essential purpose.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool has eight parameters, including nested project and subject objects, but the description only covers the basic conversion concept. The rich schema and output schema carry most of the detail, so the description is adequate but leaves important context about open-record weighing and optional inputs implicit.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter, including mass, amount, units, strands, and molecular_weight. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what is already in the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description names a specific verb and resource: converting mass to moles and molecule count, or the reverse. It is clear what the tool computes, but it does not distinguish this tool from related siblings such as peptide_mass or protein_properties.

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 bidirectional phrasing implies when the tool is useful, but there is no explicit 'use this when' guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative tools. An agent can infer the use case but must choose among siblings without help from the description.

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