Skip to main content
Glama

jean — Molecular Biology & Genomics

crispr_quantify_edits

Read-only

Quantify a CRISPR edit from a pair of Sanger traces — how much of the population was edited, what the indel spectrum looks like, and how well the model fits. Synthego ICE: the CONTROL trace gives the unedited sequence, the EDITED trace is decomposed into a mixture of proposed indels around each guide's cut, and the abundances are fitted. Answers the question a screen cannot: not whether a guide is good, but what it actually did to these cells.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
donorNooptional HDR donor / ssODN. Given one, ICE also proposes the recombination outcome and reports an HDR percentage; left empty there is no HDR arm rather than a zero.
_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.
editedYesthe EDITED trace, by file name or id.
guidesYesthe guide spacers, RNA accepted. Each is located in the CONTROL on either strand, so the cut sites come from the data rather than from a coordinate you supply.
controlYesthe UNEDITED trace, by file name or id — it supplies the reference the edited read is decomposed against.
_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.
base_editingNoalso fit every single-base change on the PAM-distal side of each cut, for a base editor. Left false, the scores stay comparable with published ICE numbers, which the extra proposals would move. Advanced.
indel_max_sizeNolargest single-cut indel modeled either side of the cut — ICE's own CLI default is 20. In bp. Advanced.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
iceDYesICE-D, an independent discordance-based read on the same trace — a second opinion rather than a restatement
checksYesTIDE once per guide and tracy's breakpoint call on the same pair, reported beside ICE and never averaged into it; tracy's `status` says whether it agrees with ICE's top sizes
hdrPctYesthe HDR percentage, when a `donor` was given
reportYesthe whole result, including ICE's own notes and warnings
iceScoreYesthe headline ICE score: the edited fraction of the population, 0-100
perGuideYeseach guide's own answer: its cut (control base, from 1), the share edited there, its indel spectrum at that cut alone, and the alleles edited at it and another cut
rSquaredYeshow well the fitted mixture explains the edited trace. A high ICE score with a poor fit is not a result, and this is the number that says so
spectrumYesthe indel-size histogram ICE publishes, every size from -2x to +1x `indel_max_size` INCLUDING the zeros, so the spectrum's shape is visible and not only its peaks
baseEditsYeswith `base_editing`, each fitted substitution (protospacer position, control base, change, share, refit interval), the range of the pool carrying any, and the notes on phasing and near-cut calls; null otherwise
inseparableYesgroups of reported alleles this trace cannot tell apart (their expected traces correlate above a variance inflation factor of 5), each with its summed share and 95% interval; the split inside a group is not measured
contributionsYeseach proposed edit with its relative abundance, most abundant first
knockoutScoreYesthe fraction carrying a frameshift or a 21+ bp indel — the number a knockout experiment is actually asking for, which is NOT the same as the edit fraction

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by disclosing the mechanics: traces are decomposed into a mixture of proposed indels around each cut and abundances are fitted against the control reference, and it flags that the reported scores carry a fit quality. It does not discuss runtime, limits, or what happens with low-quality traces.

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-loaded with the core action and its three outputs before explaining the ICE method, which is the right ordering. The closing rhetorical sentence ('not whether a guide is good, but what it actually did') earns its place as a scoping cue, though it is the most expendable clause.

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, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the workflow, the roles of control/edited/guides, and the comparability caveat around base editing. It omits the HDR-donor path, which is documented only in the schema, and gives no hint of expected input quality, a minor gap for a tool with nested objects and an 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 every parameter, including donor, base_editing, and indel_max_size, is already documented in the schema. The description adds conceptual framing (control as the reference the edited read decomposes against) but no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the 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?

States a specific verb+resource (quantify a CRISPR edit from paired Sanger traces) and enumerates the three outputs: edit fraction, indel spectrum, and model fit. The mention of 'Synthego ICE' implicitly distinguishes it from the TIDE-based sibling tide_quantify_indels, but the sibling is never named outright, so differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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?

It implies the required context (a CONTROL trace for the unedited sequence, an EDITED trace to decompose, and guide spacers) and contrasts with screening tools via 'Answers the question a screen cannot.' However, it never states when to choose this over tide_quantify_indels or quantify_base_editing, and offers no explicit exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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