workbench

Opentrons protocol export

export_opentrons_protocol

Read-onlyIdempotent

Generate a downloadable Opentrons Python Protocol API (v2, OT-2) script that sets up the given PCR reactions on a 96-well PCR plate, at the same well positions export_plate_layout assigns. Uses real Opentrons labware/pipette API names confirmed against docs.opentrons.com and the Opentrons shared-data labware-definitions repository (opentrons_96_wellplate_200ul_pcr_full_skirt, opentrons_96_tiprack_20ul, opentrons_24_tuberack_nest_1.5ml_snapcap, nest_12_reservoir_15ml, p20_single_gen2) and the confirmed load_labware/load_instrument/transfer method signatures. Master-mix/primer/template/water volumes are clearly-labeled placeholder constants at the top of the script — this is a starting point to review and adapt for your own enzyme and instrument, not a certified ready-to-run protocol.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`reactions`	Yes	One entry per PCR reaction, up to 96 (a single 96-well plate).
`protocolName`	No	Optional protocol name (used in the script's metadata).

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint; the description adds context that the output is a downloadable script with placeholder volumes and labware names, needing review. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral context.

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 detailed but front-loads the purpose. It is not overly long; each sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise, but effectively structured.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool generates and its nature (starting point, not certified), referencing related tools. It covers the usage scenario sufficiently.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning by noting that master-mix volumes are placeholder constants and that the script uses confirmed labware/pipette API names, enhancing understanding beyond schema.

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 uses specific verb 'Generate' and resource 'downloadable Opentrons Python Protocol API script', clearly stating the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'export_plate_layout' by referencing well positions from that 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 description implies usage for setting up PCR reactions on a 96-well plate and mentions the script is a starting point, but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives (e.g., other export tools) or provide exclusions.

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

All workbench tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have highly specific purposes (e.g., crispr_grna_design vs base_editing_design vs prime_editing_design). However, there is some overlap in sequence analysis tools (characterize_sequence, sequence_report) and plasmid annotation tools (plasmid_annotate vs plasmid_deep_annotate) which could cause confusion.

Naming Consistency3/5

The naming pattern is largely consistent with snake_case verb_noun or noun_descriptor (e.g., primer_design, plasmid_annotate, fastq_trim). However, there are exceptions like 'batch', 'workflow', 'gc_content', and 'cloning_diagnose' which don't follow the verb_noun pattern consistently. Also, some names are phrases like 'golden_gate_from_parts'.

Tool Count2/5

With 101 tools, this server is extremely large and likely overwhelming for agents. Even for a comprehensive bioinformatics toolkit, this exceeds a manageable scope, risking agent confusion and inefficient tool selection. A more modular approach would be advisable.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers a wide range of bioinformatics workflows including sequence analysis, primer design, cloning, CRISPR, NGS, expression analysis, and data export. There are minor gaps such as lack of a dedicated protein structure prediction tool and limited off-target genome coverage, but overall the set is impressively complete for its domain.

Resources

Need Help?