Skip to main content
Glama

jean — Molecular Biology & Genomics

copy_number_mosaicism

Read-only

Estimate which mosaic fraction class each region of one chromosome is closest to, as Affymetrix Power Tools computes it. A mosaic event is present in only some of the sample's cells, so its log2 ratio sits between the levels a clonal change would produce. Every segment comes back with the class it was assigned (±0.3, ±0.5, ±0.7, ±1.0), the fraction that class is NAMED for, its confidence, and whether the method CALLED it as mosaic — a whole-copy change of exactly ±1.0 is clonal and is reported with call 0, which is the vendor's own test. The mixture values are class labels, not measured cell fractions: there is no published method for this estimate and no independent implementation to grade it against, so it is reported as APT computes it and the provenance output carries that sentence. A chromosome with fewer than 4,330 markers is refused by name rather than answered empty, because the method's own boundary adjustments would delete every call.

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.
graphNowhich graph column to read. Unset is the first log2-ratio column, the same rule copy_number_segment applies. A column that is not a log2 ratio is refused rather than smoothed: a copy-number STATE column is already someone's answer.
_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 read, by name. Unset is the file's FIRST, which is what the panel opens on.
chromosomeNowhich chromosome, as the file numbers them (1-22, then 23=X, 24=Y, 25=MT — the file's own convention). Unset is the first the index carries. A chromosome too short for the method is refused with the count it has and the ones that would run.
mosaic_bandwidthNothe smoothing window in markers — APT's own `marker-bandwidth`. A mosaic event is a shallow wide elevation, so this is what decides how wide 'wide' is. The default is the vendor's shipped value.
mosaic_confidence_windowNothe running-median window used to score a segment, in markers — APT's own `confidence-window`. The default is the vendor's shipped value.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
calledYesthe subset of segments with call === 1 — the mosaic events themselves, separated out so a pipeline does not have to know the vendor’s clonal test to find them
summaryYeshow many segments the method produced, how many of them it CALLED as mosaic, which classes they fall in, and which chromosome and column answered
segmentsYesevery segment: startPosition and endPosition in bases, startIndex and endIndex in markers, mixture (the class as APT numbers it), mixtureValue (the fraction that class is NAMED for — a label, not a measurement), confidence, and call, which is 1 only for a segment the method calls mosaic. A reader looking for mosaic events wants call === 1
provenanceYeswhich file, data set, chromosome and column answered, how many markers were read, the windows and the eight class boundaries the run used, and the sentence this estimate must be presented with — verbatim from the engine, never paraphrased

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/destructive/openWorld annotations, the description discloses genuinely non-obvious behavior: chromosomes under 4,330 markers are refused by name, a whole-copy ±1.0 change is clonal and returned with call 0, and the class labels are not measured cell fractions (no independent implementation exists to grade them). These are exactly the caveats an agent would otherwise discover only after a surprising result.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the opening sentence, and the subsequent sentences each carry distinct information (class semantics, clonal rule, provenance caveat, refusal). It is somewhat dense and verbose, with parenthetical asides, but it is not padded or repetitive. Slightly over-long for a single tool, keeping it at 4.

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?

With an output schema present the description need not enumerate return fields, yet it still characterizes the outputs (class, named fraction, confidence, call) at a useful level. Combined with the refusal rule and provenance disclaimer, an agent has enough to call and interpret the tool correctly, though the lack of when-to-use-vs-siblings guidance leaves a small gap.

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 every parameter (file, graph, chromosome, mosaic_bandwidth, mosaic_confidence_window, etc.) is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds only indirect meaning — the 4,330-marker refusal threshold and the notion of a shallow wide elevation motivating the bandwidth — without explaining any parameter's syntax or format beyond the schema. Baseline 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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource: assigning each region of one chromosome to a mosaic fraction class as APT computes it. It also explains the underlying phenomenon (a mosaic event's log2 ratio sits between clonal levels) and the call convention, making the tool's function unambiguous. It stops short of naming any sibling (e.g. copy_number_segment, copy_number_loh) as an alternative, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 context is implied rather than stated: the description explains that mosaic events produce intermediate log2 ratios, from which an agent can infer when this tool is relevant. It never says when to prefer this over copy_number_segment, copy_number_loh, or the other copy-number siblings, and offers no explicit exclusions beyond the short-chromosome refusal. Adequate but with a clear routing gap.

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