HLA-Verify

validate_gl_string

Read-onlyIdempotent

Validate and normalize a GL String (Genotype List, ^ | + ~ / grammar): resolves every allele token, flags outdated/unresolvable names and structural problems (mixed loci within a slash-list, a repeated locus within a haplotype or across ^ blocks, more than two haplotypes, differing loci across a genotype or genotype list, empty elements), and returns the normalized string. Grammar and nomenclature checking only; send allele names, not patient identifiers.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`gl`	Yes	GL String to validate and normalize. Allele names and GL grammar only, never patient identifiers.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`loci`	Yes
`valid`	Yes	true when there are no error-severity issues.
`counts`	Yes
`issues`	Yes
`alleles`	Yes	Each distinct allele token, in first-seen order.
`changed`	Yes	normalized_gl differs from the trimmed input.
`release`	Yes	IPD-IMGT/HLA release every verdict was computed against.
`attribution`	No	Data attribution (IPD-IMGT/HLA, CC-BY-ND).
`normalized_gl`	Yes	The GL String with outdated names replaced by current ones.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 16, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / gl / description

Previous value: -"GL String to validate and normalize."New value: +"GL String to validate and normalize. Allele names and GL grammar only, never patient identifiers."

First observedSep 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnly and idempotent safety. The description adds behavioral specifics: it flags outdated/unresolvable names and structural issues, normalizes the string, and reiterates it only checks grammar/nomenclature, not patient data. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense but front-loaded with the purpose. The enumeration of specific structural problems is valuable but somewhat lengthy; still, every sentence contributes necessary detail. No filler.

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 an output schema present and comprehensive parameter documentation, the description covers all essential behavior: what is validated, what is returned, and the constraint on input. Slightly more detail on error handling could be added, but the tool is well-specified overall.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% with a clear description of the 'gl' parameter. The underlying tool description further enriches meaning by explaining the GL grammar and the validation behavior, surpassing what the schema alone 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 states a specific verb ('Validate and normalize'), a precise resource ('GL String'), and explains the grammar ('Genotype List, ^ | + ~ / grammar'). It enumerates exactly what is checked (unresolvable names, structural problems) and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'normalize_allele' by focusing on list-level validation.

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 provides clear context: it is for grammar and nomenclature checking only, and explicitly tells the agent to send allele names, not patient identifiers. However, it does not name alternative tools or state when NOT to use this tool, leaving some ambiguity relative to siblings like 'verify_text'.

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.