workbench

PCR plate layout

export_plate_layout

Read-onlyIdempotent

Assign a set of PCR reactions (name + forward/reverse primer + optional template label) to wells on a 96-well plate, row-major (A1, A2, … A12, then B1, B2, … up to H12). Returns the well-assignment data for rendering a plate diagram; export_opentrons_protocol and export_echo_picklist build their downloadable files from this exact same layout, so all three always agree.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`reactions`	Yes	One entry per PCR reaction, up to 96 (a single 96-well plate).

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe, idempotent operation. The description adds behavioral details: row-major well assignment and the fact that the layout is shared with export tools, ensuring agreement. No contradictions 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two sentences long, front-loads the core purpose, and adds necessary context about sibling tools. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy.

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 the tool has one parameter, no output schema, and good annotations, the description adequately covers what the tool does, its input constraints, and its relationship to sibling tools. It could be improved by mentioning error conditions or further behavior details, but it is largely complete for an agent to select and invoke.

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%, and the schema already describes the 'reactions' array and its properties. The description reiterates the fields (name, forward, reverse, template) but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema. The row-major ordering pertains to output, not parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the tool assigns PCR reactions to a 96-well plate in row-major order and returns well-assignment data for a plate diagram. It distinguishes itself from related tools by mentioning that export_opentrons_protocol and export_echo_picklist use the same layout, ensuring consistency.

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 implies when to use this tool (for plate layout and diagram rendering) versus the sibling export tools (for file creation), but it does not explicitly state exclusion conditions or provide definitive guidance on tool selection. The mention of sibling agreement helps, but could be more direct.

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?