Skip to main content
Glama

CovaSyn Chemistry Tools

covair_verify

Verify a structure against a measured IR spectrum: verdict, band recall, and what is left unexplained.

Pass `path` whenever you have the spectrum file. The curve is baseline-corrected
and normalised the way covair_auto_analyze does it, and the verdict then requires
two things: that the structure's expected bands were found AND that the structure
accounts for the absorption actually measured. With neither a `path` nor peaks
there is nothing to verify against and the verdict is `no_evidence` -- not
`inconsistent`, which would assert evidence against the structure where none was
supplied. With peaks but no curve, `verdict_basis` reads `peak_recall_only` and
the verdict cannot reach `consistent`.

Do NOT read a verdict off `match_score`. It is the fraction of the CANDIDATE's own
expected bands that were found, so the denominator belongs to the candidate and a
structure predicting few bands scores high on any spectrum. Measured on a real
aspirin spectrum: hexane, which contains no oxygen, scores 1.00 where aspirin
scores 0.92, because all four of hexane's expected bands are C-H. Read `match_score`
with `n_expected_bands` beside it; `band_recall_verdict` shows what recall alone
would have concluded, and `verdict_note` says in words why the verdict differs.

Two measured limits. This blocks the "explains almost nothing" class, not wrong
structures in general -- nitrobenzene still reads `consistent` against an aspirin
spectrum. And on featureless input the unexplained-absorption test collapses onto
its chance level, so a broad candidate can pass on noise; check
`claimed_axis_fraction` in that case.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNo
smilesYes
api_keyNo
tolerance_cmNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it explains verdict semantics (no_evidence vs inconsistent), the peak_recall_only limitation, the match_score denominator trap with a concrete aspirin/hexane example, and two explicitly measured limits including chance-level collapse on featureless input. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

Long but front-loaded: verdict scope first, then input handling, then the match_score warning, then limits. Every section carries actionable content, though the match_score paragraph is dense enough to be tightened slightly.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description goes further and explains how to read the returned fields (match_score, n_expected_bands, band_recall_verdict, verdict_note, claimed_axis_fraction), which is genuinely helpful. The remaining gap is the missing/phantom `peaks` parameter and undocumented tolerance_cm, which leaves the invocation surface incompletely specified.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only clarifies `path` and never explains `smiles`, `tolerance_cm`, or `api_key`. Worse, it repeatedly discusses a `peaks` input that does not appear in the schema, which could mislead an agent about the actual call signature.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Verify a structure against a measured IR spectrum') and enumerates the outputs (verdict, band recall, unexplained absorption). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from covair_auto_analyze by noting the curve is corrected 'the way covair_auto_analyze does it', so an agent can place it relative to siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives clear input-conditional usage: 'Pass `path` whenever you have the spectrum file', and spells out the degraded modes (no path/peaks -> no_evidence; peaks only -> peak_recall_only and consistent unreachable). It does not, however, route the agent between covair_verify and siblings like covair_identify or covair_compare when the structure itself is unknown.

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.