Skip to main content
Glama

jean — Molecular Biology & Genomics

check_manufacturability

Read-only

Measure a sequence against what a NAMED synthesis vendor publishes it can make: length, average and windowed GC, homopolymer runs, tandem repeats, long repeats and hairpin-forming inverted repeats. Every threshold is the vendor's own, read from the vendor's own page with the date it was read, and every finding carries the span it is about so it can be drawn. It reports the limits that are MET as well as the ones exceeded, because a list of failures cannot tell a clean sequence from an unchecked one. It never predicts a synthesis outcome and never rules a sequence out: a vendor publishes what it supports, so being outside a published window is a conversation with the supplier, not a rejection.

Input Schema

TableJSON 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.
vendorNowhich vendor product to measure against. Each carries its own limits, and two vendors can honestly disagree about one sequence. Values: idt-gblocks (IDT gBlocks Gene Fragments), idt-eblocks (IDT eBlocks Gene Fragments), twist-clonal (Twist Bioscience Clonal Genes), twist-fragments (Twist Bioscience Gene Fragments).idt-gblocks
featureNomeasure a named feature of the open record instead of the whole thing — the insert you are about to order rather than the vector it sits in. Advanced.
_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.
sequenceNothe sequence to measure. Leave unset to use the open record, or the current selection when there is one.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
spansYesjust the spans of the exceeded limits, 0-based half-open, ready to draw on the map — the half of a finding a user cannot act on without
checkedYeshow many limits were graded. Read it beside `outside`: 0 of 4 and 0 of 7 are different answers, because vendors publish different numbers of limits
outsideYeshow many published limits this sequence exceeds — the number to branch a workflow on
profileYesthe vendor profile every verdict here was made against, including the page it was read from and the date — a threshold whose source is not stated is not checkable
readingYesthe report in words, generated from the findings: which limits are exceeded by how much, what could not be graded, and the standing qualification that published support is not a refusal policy
verdictYes`within` when every published limit is met, `outside` when any is exceeded. Not a prediction and not a refusal: it is whether the sequence sits inside the envelope the vendor publishes
findingsYesevery limit, met or not, with what this sequence measures, what the vendor publishes, and the span it is about where it has one
notGradedYeslimits the vendor publishes that this sequence could not be graded on, each with the reason. A 40 bp insert has no 50 bp GC window, and silence would make a shorter sequence look like a cleaner one
repeatScreensYesthe Synthesis Success Calculator's six published repeat-density screens (Halper, Hossain & Salis 2020), independent of vendor: each with its rule, whether it fires (null where it does not apply, as the 500 bp window under 1,000 bp), what was measured and the first span that tripped it. Rules from the literature, not a vendor's acceptance limits

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare a safe, read-only, closed-world read, but the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: thresholds are the vendor's own, taken from the vendor's page with the read date, findings carry the span they refer to so they can be drawn, and passing limits are reported alongside failures so a clean sequence can be told from an unchecked one. This is exactly the kind of behavioral disclosure the annotations cannot supply.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the measurement list and with each sentence carrying distinct content (what is measured, threshold provenance, reporting philosophy, limits of inference). Slightly verbose in places but nothing is filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description fully covers what is measured, the provenance of thresholds, why both passing and failing limits are reported, and what the result does not mean. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret this tool correctly is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents every parameter, including the vendor enum list and the vendor-disagreement caveat. The description reinforces the vendor provenance idea but adds little per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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?

States a specific verb (measure) and resource (a sequence against a named synthesis vendor's published limits) and enumerates exactly what is checked: length, GC, homopolymer runs, tandem repeats, long repeats and hairpin-forming inverted repeats. An agent can distinguish this from neighbors like optimize_sequence or check_golden_gate_parts because the scope is vendor-published synthesis constraints.

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?

Gives clear context for use (measuring the insert you are about to order) and explicit boundary guidance: it never predicts a synthesis outcome and never rules a sequence out, since being outside a published window is a supplier conversation. It does not name an alternative tool or state exclusions versus siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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