Skip to main content
Glama

record_composition

Read-only

What the subject record is MADE OF: molecular weight under its own topology and strand count, GC and AT over the resolved bases, and the per-symbol census with the ambiguity codes broken out. The nucleic-acid counterpart of protein_properties, and the same derivation the editor's Properties panel, its inspector and the alignment inspector all draw (Biopython's mass model; ProtParam for a protein subject).

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.
_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.
doubleStrandedNoweigh BOTH strands (a plasmid or any dsDNA record) rather than the one strand written in the file (an oligo, an RNA, an alignment row). The two answers differ by about a factor of two, which is why it is a parameter and not a guess. Defaults to true, or false when the record is RNA (U and no T), which is also weighed with RNA residue masses.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
lengthYessymbols in the record, non-standard ones included
strandsYeshow many strands the mass was taken over: 2, 1, or 0 for a protein where the question does not arise
atPercentYespercent A+T over the same denominator. Null for a protein
gcPercentYespercent G+C over the RESOLVED A/C/G/T bases (`standardCount`), which is Biopython's gc_fraction default (ambiguous="remove") — not over the full length, so it complements `atPercent` exactly. Null for a protein
extinctionYesprotein subjects only: e280 under both cystine conventions; null otherwise
compositionYesone row per standard symbol: code, label, count, and its percent of `standardCount`
nonStandardYesthe symbols the alphabet does not define — Ns, IUPAC ambiguity codes, gaps — with counts and NO share, because they are excluded from the denominator
standardCountYeshow many of `length` are standard — the denominator every share here is over
molecularWeightYesmolecular weight — g/mol for a nucleic acid under `doubleStranded` and the record's own topology, Da for a protein
isoelectricPointYesprotein subjects only (ProtParam, Bjellqvist); null otherwise

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / atPercent / x-unit
      Added value: +"%"
    • addedOutput schema / properties / gcPercent / x-unit
      Added value: +"%"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful provenance beyond annotations: Biopython's mass model, ProtParam for a protein subject, and consistency with the editor's Properties/inspector derivations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the composition metrics and then provenance. The panel/inspector clause is dense, but it earns its place by explaining where the same derivation is used; there is no wasted restatement of the schema.

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?

With a full input schema, an output schema, and explicit read-only annotations, the description covers the computation's scope and derivation well enough for correct invocation. The main missing element is explicit routing guidance among adjacent analysis tools, but that is somewhat addressed by naming `protein_properties`.

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 the schema already documents `_files`, `_subject`, and `doubleStranded`, including the defaulting behavior for RNA. The description adds conceptual context about topology and strand count, but does not provide parameter-level guidance beyond what the schema provides.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description names a specific computed resource: what the subject record is made of, enumerating molecular weight under topology/strand count, GC/AT over resolved bases, and per-symbol census with ambiguity codes. It also identifies the sibling counterpart `protein_properties`, making clear this is the nucleic-acid composition tool.

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 only routing cue is that it is the 'nucleic-acid counterpart of `protein_properties`', which helps separate nucleic-acid from protein subjects. However, it does not address when to use this rather than adjacent siblings such as `gc_content` or `melting_temperature`, and gives no explicit when-not guidance.

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