Skip to main content
Glama

find_primer_snps

Read-only

Find known SNPs under primers, the check NCBI Primer-BLAST makes with "Primer binding site may not contain known SNP".

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pairsNothe pairs to check, as design_primer_pairs' `pairs` output (each with forward and reverse start/end on the template).
_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.
forwardNoa forward primer to locate on the template by exact match, when no `pairs` are given.
reverseNoa reverse primer to locate by exact match of its reverse complement.
snp_setNo`dbSnp155Common`: About 15 million variants with a minor allele frequency of at least 1% in 1000 Genomes Phase 3. The default. `dbSnp155`: Every mapped variant: 1.06 billion locations on hg38, so few primers avoid them all. `dbSnp155ClinVar`: About 820,000 variants ClinVar mentions, benign and pathogenic alike.dbSnp155Common
_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.
assemblyYesthe UCSC assembly id the template was cut from (hg38, mm39, danRer11…).
positionYeswhere the template sits in that assembly, as chromosome:position, 1-based: the lowest assembly coordinate the template covers. The check finds which strand the template reads on itself.
templateNothe sequence the primers sit on. Left empty, the open record is used.
window_endNo1-based last base of the span to check. Advanced.
window_startNo1-based first base of the template span to check. Unset = the whole template. Advanced.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
snpsYesevery SNP in the span, placed on the template (0-based, end-exclusive), with alleles as they read on the template's strand and whether the template spells dbSNP's reference allele there
flaggedYeshow many primers sit on at least one known SNP
primersYesevery primer checked: its name, span on the template, strand, and the SNPs under it with rsID, alleles, minor allele frequency and distance from the 3′ end (1 = the 3′ base)
excludedYesthe SNP spans, for design_primer_pairs' `excluded`

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-destructive, open-world query. The description adds useful context by tying the operation to the NCBI Primer-BLAST known-SNP check, but it does not explain what happens when no SNPs are found, how hits are reported, or any practical caveats beyond the annotation coverage.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The quoted Primer-BLAST phrase earns its place by clarifying the biological check, though the overall brevity leaves it somewhat under-specified for an 11-parameter tool.

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 11 parameters, nested inputs, and an output schema, so much of the detail is correctly delegated to structured fields. However, the description does not explain when this check belongs in a primer-validation workflow or how it relates to sibling primer tools, leaving a meaningful contextual gap.

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 input schema already documents all parameters including the SNP set choices and the alternative pair/forward/reverse inputs. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the high-level notion of primers sitting on a template, so the baseline of 3 is 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 states a specific verb and resource: find known SNPs under primers. It also anchors the operation to NCBI Primer-BLAST's known-SNP check, which makes the purpose concrete. It does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling primer-checking tools such as primer_check or check_primer_specificity.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus primer_check, check_primer_specificity, or the primer design tools. The description implies the context through the Primer-BLAST reference, but an agent must infer the workflow and any exclusions on its own.

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