Skip to main content
Glama

ligation_independent_clone

Join fragments without a ligase by one of the five named methods — LIC, SLIC, In-Fusion, CPEC or USER (pydna).

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.
arm_ntNohomology per junction. Left unset, the method's own recommended arm is used (In-Fusion widens its own for more than one insert). In nt.
methodNothe cloning method, which decides the chemistry: LIC and SLIC and In-Fusion chew 3' ends, CPEC removes nothing, USER excises a uracil. Values: lic (LIC), slic (SLIC), in-fusion (In-Fusion), cpec (CPEC), user (USER).in-fusion
_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.
fragmentsNothe fragments to join — wire upstream `record` outputs here, or name library documents.
circular_onlyNoreport only circular products.
include_subjectNoalso include the node's subject as a fragment.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
armYesthe homology arm the run used
recordYesthe first product, as a record
summaryYeswhat the reaction gave, naming the method and its chemistry
productsYesevery product
armVerdictYeswhether that arm is one the method's authority stands behind, in its own words
productCountYesnumber of products (>1 = ambiguous)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this is ligase-independent joining and names the underlying methods, but it does not clarify whether this is an in-silico simulation or what the operation changes, leaving some behavioral context implicit.

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. It is slightly redundant in listing methods that the schema already enumerates, but that list does aid quick method recognition.

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 is moderately complex with seven parameters, nested objects, and an output schema, so much of the structured detail is already covered. However, the description omits method-selection guidance and sibling differentiation, which are important for an agent choosing among many assembly tools.

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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description only echoes the five method names already present in the method enum and adds no meaning for arm_nt, fragments, circular_only, include_subject, or _subject, making the baseline of 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 states a specific action ("Join fragments") and scope ("without a ligase") and names five supported methods, which distinguishes it from ligase-based assembly tools. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as ligate_fragments or gibson_assemble, so it falls short of a 5.

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 ligate_fragments, gibson_assemble, fusion_pcr, or other assembly tools. The method enum and chemistry descriptions live in the schema, but the description itself offers no selection criteria or exclusions.

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