Skip to main content
Glama

discover_annotation_contradictions

Read-only

Find the signal peptides or transmembrane segments in reviewed human UniProt that a sequence predictor contradicts. Each feature backed by experiment (evidence code ECO:0000269) is scored to say what a confirmed feature looks like to the predictor; every other feature, annotated from similarity, sequence analysis or a rule, is ranked among those scores, and its conformal p-value (1 + experimental features scoring at or below it) / (experimental + 1) is corrected across all of them. Signal, by either predictor: von Heijne's weight-matrix score (EMBOSS sigcleave) of the cleavage site UniProt annotates, or DeepSig's probability that the protein carries a signal peptide at all (its eukaryotic network ensemble, from the first 96 residues). Transmembrane: the share of the segment the HMM-TM topology model labels membrane helix. A contradiction is a disagreement between two models, to be read, not a correction of UniProt: von Heijne's matrix and the HMM-TM model are weaker than the SignalP and TMHMM runs behind most such annotations; DeepSig is of their generation. The result carries a self-check, half the experimental features tested against the other half, whose calls are all false by construction.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
alphaNofalse discovery rate at which an annotation is called contradicted.
_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.
featureNowhich annotation to test: signal peptides or transmembrane segments. Values: signal (Signal peptides), transmembrane (Transmembrane segments).signal
_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.
decodingNotransmembrane only: which HMM-TM decoder labels the residues. N-best is left out: it takes minutes per long protein, and the corpus has 5,231. Values: viterbi (Viterbi), posterior-viterbi (Posterior-Viterbi), optimal-accuracy (Optimal accuracy). Only applies when feature is transmembrane. Advanced.viterbi
predictorNosignal only: von Heijne's matrix asks whether signal peptidase would cut where UniProt says; DeepSig asks whether the protein has a signal peptide at all (it loads 9.8 MB of network weights and runs twenty networks per protein, so it is far slower than the matrix). Values: von-heijne (von Heijne matrix), deepsig (DeepSig). Only applies when feature is signal.von-heijne
correctionNoBenjamini–Hochberg (independent or positively dependent tests; conformal p-values against one calibration set are positively dependent) or Benjamini–Yekutieli (any dependence; less power). Values: BH (Benjamini–Hochberg), BY (Benjamini–Yekutieli).BH

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countYeshow many annotations are contradicted
resultYesthe full result, every tested annotation included
selfCheckYeshalf the experimental features tested against the other half: raw p ≤ α should be near α of them, and FDR calls near none
contradictedYesthe annotations contradicted at the chosen false discovery rate: accession, gene, span, statistic, p and q

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / decoding / description
      Previous value: -"transmembrane only: which HMM-TM decoder labels the residues. N-best is left out: it takes minutes per long protein, and the corpus has 5,231. Values: viterbi (Viterbi), posterior-viterbi (Posterior-Viterbi), optimal-accuracy (Optimal accuracy). Advanced."New value: +"transmembrane only: which HMM-TM decoder labels the residues. N-best is left out: it takes minutes per long protein, and the corpus has 5,231. Values: viterbi (Viterbi), posterior-viterbi (Posterior-Viterbi), optimal-accuracy (Optimal accuracy). Only applies when feature is transmembrane. Advanced."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, non-destructive), and the description goes well beyond them: it explains the scoring method, warns that contradictions reflect weaker models than SignalP/TMHMM, discloses that the self-check's calls are false by construction, and notes DeepSig's cost (9.8 MB of weights, twenty networks per protein). This is exactly the interpretive context an agent needs before trusting the output.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The purpose is front-loaded and every sentence is information-bearing, but the prose is dense with stacked parentheticals and statistical jargon that make it hard to scan. The method exposition (conformal p-values, halves self-check) could be tightened without losing agent-facing value.

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?

For a complex tool with nested parameters and an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it defines what a contradiction is, caveats interpretation, and flags a pathological self-check result. Only explicit routing against sibling prediction/topology tools is missing, and return-value explanation is appropriately delegated to the output schema.

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, but the description adds conceptual meaning to the enum choices: it explains what each predictor actually asks (cleavage-site cut vs. presence of a signal peptide) and how the conformal p-value and FDR correction work, which helps an agent reason about alpha and correction rather than just read their definitions.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource: finding signal peptides or transmembrane segments in reviewed human UniProt that a sequence predictor contradicts. That is far more precise than a restated name, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like protein_signal_peptide, protein_topology, or protein_membrane_profile, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 implied rather than stated: the scope (reviewed human UniProt, signal or transmembrane features) tells the agent when the tool applies, and the 'to be read, not a correction' framing clarifies intent. However, no alternative tool is named and there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, so the agent must infer routing.

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