Skip to main content
Glama

Jean — Molecular Biology & Genomics

check_primer_specificity

Read-only

Check primer pairs for products off their template, the way NCBI Primer-BLAST does, and rank them by it: each distinct primer is searched against a sequence database at EMBL-EBI with short-query BLAST, hits are paired into products by Primer-BLAST's own mismatch rule, and the template is searched too so the record identical to it is recognized as the intended target.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailNoEBI requires a contact address on every submission (their abuse contact, not a login). Left empty, the one saved in any EMBL-EBI panel is used.
pairsNoseveral pairs to rank, one per line as `forward reverse` (whitespace or a comma between), in their design order. Taken instead of forward/reverse when given.
top_nNohow many of the pairs, from the top, to search. The rest rank as unchecked. At most 14, so the batch stays inside EMBL-EBI's 30 searches.
_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.
forwardNoone pair's forward primer, 5'→3' (wire design_primers' `forward`).
reverseNothat pair's reverse primer, 5'→3' (wire design_primers' `reverse`).
_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.
databaseNothe nucleotide database id, as the service names it (em_all, em_rel_hum…). Left empty, the service's OWN nucleotide default is used and reported back.
templateNothe sequence the pairs were designed on. Searched too: the database record identical to it is where the intended product lives. Left empty, the open record is used; with neither, every product counts as unintended and the result says so.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rankedYesevery pair in ranked order: its design rank, standing (specific, unchecked, non-specific), intended products and unintended products with subject, span, length and mismatches
forwardYesthe top-ranked pair's forward primer (wire into pcr_amplify)
reverseYesthe top-ranked pair's reverse primer
identicalYesdatabase records identical to the template, whose products are the intended ones
specificCountYespairs with no product off the template; wire into a $when to branch on "any specific pair"

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive. The description adds real behavioural context beyond them: the check runs remote short-query BLAST at EMBL-EBI, hits are paired by Primer-BLAST's own mismatch rule, the batch is capped by the service's 30-search budget, and if no template is supplied every product is counted as unintended and the result says so. Return shape and error modes are left to the output schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence opens with the action, then a colon-delimited clause walks through the mechanism in execution order. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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?

For a nine-parameter, nested-schema, open-world remote tool with an output schema, the description covers approach, ranking semantics, budget limits and the no-template fallback. It could still say more about how ranking scores are reported, but that is arguably the output schema's job.

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 the schema already explains email, pairs, top_n, template and database. The description adds mechanism (template is searched so the identical record is recognised as intended target) rather than new per-parameter meaning, 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Check primer pairs for products off their template ... and rank them by it', and pins the semantics to 'the way NCBI Primer-BLAST does'. That is far more informative than the name alone. It stops short of naming how it differs from near-neighbours like primer_check or search_off_targets, so an agent still has to infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: it is clearly the post-design specificity ranking step, and the schema wires forward/reverse to design_primers. But there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative for a simpler check.

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