Jean — Molecular Biology & Genomics

filter_items

Read-only

Keep only the rows of a table-shaped output that meet a condition — the bands above a size, the guides over a score, the assays under a penalty.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`max`	No	upper bound, inclusive. Only applies when operator is between.
`min`	No	lower bound, inclusive. Only applies when operator is between.
`set`	No	the values the field must be one of (or none of). Only applies when operator is in or not_in.
`text`	No	the text a field must contain. Only applies when operator is contains.
`field`	No	which field of each row to test (e.g. `size`, `score`, `length`). Leave empty to test the row itself when it is a plain number.
`items`	Yes	the rows to filter — wire a json/list output (bands, guides, assays, amplicons).
`value`	No	the value to compare against. Only applies when operator is == or != or > or >= or < or <=.
`_files`	No	The 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.
`_subject`	No	The 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.
`operator`	No	how to compare. Values: == (equals), != (does not equal), > (greater than), >= (at least), < (less than), <= (at most), between (between (inclusive)), in (is one of), not_in (is none of), contains (contains text), is_true (is true), not_empty (is not empty).	>=

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`count`	Yes	how many rows were kept — wire this into check_value to gate on it
`items`	Yes	the rows that met the condition
`dropped`	Yes	how many rows were removed

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 20, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already establish that this is read-only, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds that non-matching rows are dropped from a table-shaped output, but it does not cover error handling, malformed rows, or other operational caveats.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the em-dash examples are placed after the core operation. Every phrase contributes to clarifying what filtering means in this context.

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 a 10-parameter filter tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and safe read-only annotations, the description is sufficient to recognize the core operation. It does omit sibling routing guidance and does not explain the generic _subject/_files inputs, but those are largely covered by structured fields.

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 coverage is 100%, so the field, operator, value, min/max, set, and text parameters are already well documented. The description reinforces the filtering concept through examples but does not add mapping details beyond the schema; baseline 3 is 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 uses a specific verb and resource: keep only rows of a table-shaped output that meet a condition. The bands/guides/assays examples make the filtering operation concrete, but it does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as check_rows or summarize_rows.

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?

The description implies when to use it by describing condition-based row filtering and giving sample scenarios like bands above a size or assays under a penalty. However, it gives no explicit when-not guidance or alternative-tool routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Jean — Molecular Biology & Genomics tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?