Skip to main content
Glama

jean — Molecular Biology & Genomics

design_genetic_circuit

Read-only

Design a genetic circuit that computes: give it a logic function and it synthesizes a NOR/NOT netlist, assigns real characterized repressor gates from a Cello UCF library, predicts the dynamic range between ON and OFF, and emits the construct's DNA. The gate parameters are MEASURED, from the published libraries, with the host and growth conditions they were measured under reported alongside — never estimated here.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
logicNothe function the circuit computes: a named gate (NOT, AND, OR, NAND, NOR, XOR, XNOR, AND3, OR3, MAJORITY-3), or a truth table as one bit per input combination with the first input most significant (AND is `0001`).AND
_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.
groupsNocomma-separated repressor groups the search may draw on. Narrowing this is how a large search is made tractable — and how a gate you cannot obtain is kept out of the design. Advanced.
libraryNothe characterized gate library to build from. Each was measured in one host under one growth condition, and the prediction inherits both.Eco1C1G1T1
sensorsNocomma-separated input sensors the search may use. Leave unset to consider every sensor the library carries. Advanced.
_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.
reportersNocomma-separated output reporters the search may use. Leave unset to consider all of them. Advanced.
max_assignmentsNorefuse rather than search past this many assignments. A ceiling, not a target: the search is EXHAUSTIVE, so it is never sampled — a best-of-some reported as a best-of-all is a wrong answer rather than a slow one. Advanced.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dnaYesthe construct broken into devices and parts, each with its own sequence, plus the solved device order and every placement constraint the library declares
scoreYesthe predicted dynamic range: the dimmest ON output divided by the brightest OFF, across every input combination
curvesYeseach assigned gate's transfer function sampled around its own midpoint, with this design's operating points on it — one curve per physical gate that won a row, so a group won by two gates gives two curves
netlistYesthe NOR/NOT netlist synthesized from the logic function, and the table it was checked to compute
sequenceYesthe construct's DNA, the devices concatenated in the order the library's placement rules put them
toxicityYeswhat the circuit costs the host: relative growth per truth-table row, the worst row, and per-gate detail — plus how many of the assigned gates actually carried a measured growth table, because a growth of 1.00 means something different when nothing was measured
librariesYesevery shipped library with its host, growth conditions and gate count, so a caller can choose one
placementYeshow the device order was solved: the arrangement including the library's landing pads, how many of its placement constraints bound this construct, and any rule whose operator is not implemented
assignmentYeswhich sensors, gate groups and reporters the winning design uses
truthTableYesevery input combination with its logic values and its analog levels in RPU, per node
explanationYesthe derivation chain: conclusion, interpretation, earned cautions and machinery, generated from this run

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish a safe, closed-world read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond them: gate parameters are MEASURED from published libraries rather than estimated, and the host/growth conditions of measurement are reported alongside the result — a provenance trait the agent could not infer from annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the pipeline in a colon-led list, then a second sentence reserved for the single most decision-relevant caveat (measured, not estimated). Dense but no filler; the em-dash clause is the only mild indulgence.

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 an 8-parameter, nested-object tool with a large sibling set, the description covers the pipeline, the library provenance caveat, and the safety-relevant 'never estimated here' guarantee. With an output schema present, return values needn't be explained, so this is close to complete.

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 one of the 8 parameters (including nested _subject and _files) is already documented in the schema. The description alludes to a logic function and to library provenance but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema supplies, so the baseline 3 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 and resource ('Design a genetic circuit') and enumerates the concrete sub-steps of the pipeline: NOR/NOT netlist synthesis, gate assignment from a Cello UCF library, dynamic-range prediction, and DNA emission. This makes it unmistakable against the many design_* and assembly_* siblings.

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 'give it a logic function and it synthesizes...' but the description never states when to reach for this versus alternatives (e.g., assemble_operon, design_codehop, verify_construct), nor any prerequisites or when-not conditions. The 'Advanced' filtering hints live only in the schema, not the description.

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