Skip to main content
Glama

design_oligo_plate_order

Read-only

Lay a set of oligos out as a supplier's PLATE order sheet: one worksheet per plate, in the well order the supplier's own order form fills, with the column shape its loading direction requires.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fillNohow the plate is loaded. It decides the FILE'S COLUMNS, not just the order: a plate filled by row or by column carries no well column at all, because the supplier derives each position from the row order. Values: rows (Rows (A1, A2, A3 …)), columns (Columns (A1, B1, C1 …)), explicit (Explicitly entered).rows
mixedNoone well per PRIMER PAIR: `oligos` is read as forward, reverse, forward, reverse, and each plate is written as every well once carrying the forwards and again carrying the reverses.
namesYesa name per oligo, in the same order. A plate well is ORDERED BY NAME, so an unnamed oligo is refused rather than numbered: the label is what the supplier ships the tube under.
_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.
formatNowells per plate. Values: 96 (96 well), 384 (384 well).
oligosYesthe oligos to lay out, 5'→3'. Wire them from a design run, or list them. With `mixed`, these are read in FORWARD, REVERSE order — two entries per well.
_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.
plate_nameNothe plate's name, which becomes the worksheet's name. Several plates get ' (2)', ' (3)' appended.Plate 1
pad_to_capacityNowrite every unused well as the supplier's blank-name, blank-sequence row rather than ending the sheet short. Advanced.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tsvYesthe FIRST plate as tab-delimited text, in the column shape the loading direction requires — the shape the supplier's own paste box accepts verbatim. Several plates means several sheets: read `sheets` for the rest
sheetsYesone entry per PLATE: its name, its grid, how many wells it fills against the plate's capacity, and every laid-out well
columnsYesthe header row this order was written with, which is the two-vs-three column rule the loading direction decided
readingYeswhat the order is, generated from the laid-out plates rather than from the request
refusedYesevery oligo left OUT, with the reason. Never empty-because-nothing-was-checked: an order that is quietly short is one the user pays a supplier for
wellNoteYeswhy the well labels are written unpadded, which is a collision in the supplier's own form rather than our choice
plateCountYeshow many plates the set needed. Branch a workflow on this rather than re-deriving it

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail that the output structure is driven by the supplier's loading direction (one worksheet per plate, column shape from `fill`), but says nothing about file format, multi-plate naming, or failure modes like refused unnamed oligos.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler and the artifact described first. It is somewhat dense and embedded clauses about 'the well order the supplier's own order form fills' make it slower to parse than necessary.

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?

For a nine-parameter tool with a nested `_subject` object and an output schema, the description covers purpose and rough output shape but omits practical context such as what the produced file is, how multiple plates are handled, and what causes the documented refusals. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 all nine parameters including `fill`, `mixed`, `pad_to_capacity`, and `names`. The description only alludes to the loading direction affecting column shape, which the `fill` schema already states, so it adds little meaning beyond the structured fields; baseline 3 applies.

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 action (laying oligos out as a supplier's PLATE order sheet) and the concrete artifact produced (one worksheet per plate). It is distinguishable from design-type siblings by emphasizing order-sheet formatting rather than design, though it never names the nearest alternative such as design_gene_fragment_order.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for formatting oligos into a supplier plate order, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite statements, and no mention of when another sibling tool would be the better choice.

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