Skip to main content
Glama

jean — Molecular Biology & Genomics

copy_number_findings

Read-only

Scan every indexed chromosome of an Affymetrix copy-number container and report what the file itself called: gains, losses and stretches of homozygosity, with their positions, marker counts and spans, plus a per-chromosome summary. Reads the file's own CNState and LOH columns and infers nothing — for a second opinion computed from the log2 ratios, use copy_number_segment. A chromosome that was read and carries nothing is reported as clean, which is a different answer from one that could not be read. NO GENOME BUILD IS ASSUMED: positions are the file's own.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fileNowhich copy-number file in this project, by name. Unset, it is the project's only one — and it refuses rather than guessing when there is more than one.
_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.
data_setNowhich data set to scan, by name. Unset is the file's FIRST, which is what the panel opens on.
min_basesNoignore any run spanning fewer bases than this. Default 0, for the same reason as min_markers. Note a single-marker run spans 0 bases.
min_markersNoignore any run shorter than this many markers. The default counts everything the file called, including single markers, because a reporting floor belongs to the laboratory and not to this tool.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bedYesthe same calls as a UCSC BED track, ready for IGV, the UCSC browser or bedtools: 0-based half-open, one row per finding, colored by kind through itemRgb, with the producer's confidence in the score column (0 where the file states none) and the genome build on the `track db=` line when the container names one. The JSON `findings` above carry the file's own inclusive marker positions; this output is the same calls converted once, by the same writer the Export panel uses
sourceYeswhich route answered: `segments` means the producer's own segment calls, which is what a CYCHP written by ChAS carries; `markers` means the per-marker state columns, which is what a CNCHP carries. Different provenance for the same question, so a pipeline comparing two files can tell which it got
summaryYeswhat was found, across how many chromosomes and markers
findingsYesevery gain, loss and stretch of homozygosity, as the file called them: kind, chromosome, startPosition, endPosition, markerCount, bases, and — where the file states them — state and stateLabel (the copy-number state; absent on an LOH finding, which is not a copy-number call), confidence (the producer's own, 0..1) and mixture (mosaic fraction, signed as the file signs it, so a mosaic loss and a mosaic gain stay distinguishable). No cytoband: naming a band needs a genome build, and this node is given none
chromosomesYesper chromosome: markers read, and the counts and spans of gains, losses and LOH runs

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?

With readOnlyHint/destructiveHint already covering the safety profile, the description adds substantive behavior beyond annotations: it reads the file's own CNState and LOH columns and 'infers nothing', it declares NO GENOME BUILD IS ASSUMED so positions are file-native coordinates, and it distinguishes 'clean' chromosomes from unreadable ones. These are exactly the interpretive caveats an agent needs.

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?

Front-loads the action and its outputs before the caveats, and every sentence carries real information (outputs, alt-tool routing, clean-vs-unreadable, coordinate semantics). The prose is dense and em-dash heavy, which slightly taxes scanning, but nothing is padding.

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?

For a complex read-only tool with nested objects and an output schema, the definition covers everything the agent needs: scope, default resolution behavior, the alternative tool, edge-case semantics (clean vs unreadable), and coordinate interpretation. Return-format detail is correctly left to the output schema.

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 file, _files, _subject, data_set, min_bases and min_markers are already documented in the schema, including the rationale for the permissive defaults. The description adds only indirect interpretive context (that position semantics depend on the file's own build) and no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline applies.

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+resource ('Scan every indexed chromosome of an Affymetrix copy-number container') and enumerates exactly what it reports: gains, losses, homozygosity stretches, positions, marker counts, spans, plus a per-chromosome summary. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the nearest sibling by naming copy_number_segment as the ratio-based alternative.

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 a clear selection rule for the main confusable sibling ('for a second opinion computed from the log2 ratios, use copy_number_segment') and explains why defaults are permissive (reporting floor belongs to the lab). It does not address the other copy-number siblings (copy_number_loh, copy_number_regions, copy_number_mosaicism), so alternatives coverage is partial rather than exhaustive.

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