HLA-Verify

allele_info

Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up one exact name in the pinned release and return what it is: assigned (G/P group, first release, confirmed status, WMDA serology, null flag), valid_prefix (member count and sample), or deleted (successor). Not found if the name has never existed in any release.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Exact HLA allele name, a lower-resolution prefix, or a deleted name. An allele string only, never a patient name, medical record number or other identifier.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No
`detail`	No	Present only when the name is not assigned in this release (and then no other field is).
`status`	No	assigned: an exact allele in this release; valid_prefix: a lower-resolution prefix of assigned alleles; deleted: withdrawn or renamed (see successor).
`g_group`	No	assigned: G group, or null.
`ligands`	No	Class I (A/B/C) ligand facts, aggregated over member alleles: 'ambiguous' when members disagree, 'unknown' when no residue data.
`p_group`	No	assigned: P group, or null.
`release`	No	IPD-IMGT/HLA release every verdict was computed against.
`serology`	No	assigned: WMDA serologic equivalents by column (non-empty columns only).
`confirmed`	No	assigned: confirmed (vs unconfirmed) allele.
`successor`	No	deleted: the current name, or null if none.
`attribution`	No	Data attribution (IPD-IMGT/HLA, CC-BY-ND).
`null_allele`	No	assigned: true for an N (null, not expressed) allele.
`first_release`	No	assigned: first release the exact name appeared in.
`members_count`	No	valid_prefix: number of assigned alleles under the prefix.
`members_sample`	No	valid_prefix: up to 10 member alleles.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 16, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / name / description

Previous value: -"Exact allele, prefix, or deleted name."New value: +"Exact HLA allele name, a lower-resolution prefix, or a deleted name. An allele string only, never a patient name, medical record number or other identifier."

First observedSep 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses the pinned-release scoping, the three result categories, and the closed-world 'not found' behavior. This gives the agent a strong model of what the call will return and what conditions change the result.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

One dense sentence front-loads the action, then uses a compact colon-separated enumeration of outcomes. There is no filler, and no structured schema content is unnecessarily repeated.

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 single-parameter read-only lookup with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers all result classes and the not-found condition. The only undefined term, 'pinned release,' is a minor domain concept that the about sibling or system context likely resolves.

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%, and the schema already documents accepted input types and the 'never a patient name' restriction. The tool description adds little beyond 'one exact name,' so it stays at the high-coverage baseline without improving on the schema's parameter guidance.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Look up one exact name in the pinned release and return what it is.' It then enumerates the three possible outcomes (assigned, valid_prefix, deleted), which makes the tool's scope unmistakable and clearly separates it from normalization/validation siblings like normalize_allele and validate_gl_string.

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?

The description clearly frames when to use the tool: when an agent has a single exact HLA allele name to look up in the pinned release. The 'one exact name' phrasing signals this is not for fuzzy matching or GL-string processing, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All HLA-Verify tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.