Skip to main content
Glama

Jean — Molecular Biology & Genomics

assemble_multiple_inserts

Open ONE circular backbone at several places and place several inserts in a single step.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
_filesNoThe project: record references shaped like _subject. Their records become library documents a tool names in sequences/parts/document; a trace or alignment is found by file name.
enzymesYesthe enzymes that open the backbone, by name (1409 in the cloning catalogue). Their sites ARE the insertion points, so two single-cutters give two of them; a name the catalogue does not carry is refused by name rather than ignored.
insertsYesthe fragments to place, one per insertion point — wire upstream `record` outputs here, or name library documents.
_subjectNoThe record to act on: exactly one of sequence, accession (+source), sample (an id from list_samples) or file ({name, text} or {name, base64}); record_index picks one record of several.
backboneNothe circular vector to open. Leave unset to use the open record.
max_constructsNocap on how many distinct constructs are enumerated. Advanced.
max_homology_bpNolongest terminal homology considered; the bound is EXCLUSIVE, as upstream's own range is. In bp.
min_homology_bpNominimum terminal homology for two ends to join. In bp.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
arcsYesthe backbone's arcs: their lengths and the enzyme that made each end — the insertion points, made readable
recordYesthe first construct, as a record
readingYeswhat was planned, generated from the enumeration rather than the request
cutCountsYessites found per enzyme, so an enzyme that does not cut is named rather than silently absent
placementsYesevery construct the ring closes on, each with the inserts in the order they sit around it
insertionPointsYeshow many gaps the digest left, which is how many inserts the step takes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare this is a non-read-only but non-destructive, closed-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the key behavioral fact that exactly one backbone is opened at several positions and all inserts go in a single step. It says nothing about what is produced, whether the reaction is enumerated/simulated, or what happens when insert count does not match the number of cut sites.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the emphasis on ONE clarifies the key constraint immediately. It is efficient but so short that it forgoes structural elements like usage or mechanism that would help an agent.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and the rich parameter schema carries most of the semantics. Still, for an 8-parameter assembly tool in a crowded domain, the definition is thin on mechanism and on how it relates to the other assembly siblings, leaving a real gap for tool selection.

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%, so parameters like enzymes, inserts, backbone, and the homology bounds are already documented in detail (including the exclusive upper bound convention). The description only reinforces the one-backbone/many-inserts shape and adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Concrete verb and resource: it opens one circular backbone at several sites and places multiple inserts in one step, which is more specific than the name alone. However it never says by what mechanism (restriction/ligation vs homology-based) and does not distinguish itself from similar siblings such as gibson_assemble, golden_gate_assemble, ligate_fragments or restriction_ligate.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. An agent facing the many assembly tools in this server (gibson_assemble, golden_gate_assemble, recombine, restriction_ligate, ligate_fragments) gets no criteria for choosing this one, and the description states no prerequisites such as needing a circular backbone and catalogue enzymes.

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.

Resources