Skip to main content
Glama

jean — Molecular Biology & Genomics

classify_grammar_part

Read-only

Which Golden Braid / MoClo / Yeast ToolKit grammar, position and level the open plasmid represents (or null). Reads the record's own annotations, which is what lets an assembled transcription unit be recognised by its backbone half, and what lets a Level-0 module whose own backbone carries an extra site for the release enzyme be told from that backbone. Configured entry vectors are a Parts Bin concept and are NOT available here, so a TU sitting in a named acceptor is reported by its overhangs rather than by that acceptor's name.

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.
_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.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
levelYesassembly level
spansYesfor a COMPOSITE position, the slots it occupies end to end (YTK Type 234 spans 2, 3 and 4); empty otherwise
grammarYesgrammar name, or empty when unclassified
isVectorYestrue when a part at this position is also the acceptor backbone for its level (YTK Type 8, 8a, 678)
positionYesposition name within the grammar
releaseCutsYeshow many times the release enzyme cut. 2 for a clean excise; 3 for a GoldenBraid Level-0 module, whose pUPD backbone carries its own site, so the backbone is released in two pieces and the insert is identified by carrying no backbone marker
releaseEnzymeYesenzyme that releases the part
classificationYesthe full classification (null when no grammar matches)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, but the description adds substantial domain-specific context: it reads the record's own annotations, recognizes assembled transcription units by backbone half, distinguishes Level-0 modules whose backbone carries an extra release-enzyme site, and explains how configured entry vectors are reported by overhangs rather than acceptor names. These are exactly the edge cases an agent needs to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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 front-loaded with the tool's output, then explains the annotation-reading mechanism and a key limitation. It is appropriately dense for a domain-specific bioinformatics tool, though the second sentence is long and could be tightened.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description focuses on domain-specific nuance. It explains what the classifier reads, how assembled transcription units are recognized, and why configured entry vectors are not available, giving the agent enough context to call the tool correctly.

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 two parameters are already fully documented in the input schema. The description does not add parameter-specific syntax or format details beyond referring to 'the open plasmid' and 'the record's own annotations', making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 classification output: which Golden Braid / MoClo / Yeast ToolKit grammar, position, and level the open plasmid represents. This clearly distinguishes the tool's function from generic annotation or assembly tools, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with any named sibling 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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'the open plasmid represents' and by the note that configured entry vectors are not available. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as check_golden_gate_parts or match_part_by_sequence, leaving context to inference.

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