Skip to main content
Glama

Jean — Molecular Biology & Genomics

quantify_base_editing

Read-only

Quantify BASE EDITING from a single Sanger trace, with no control read — the EditR method (Kluesner et al. 2018), ported and graded against the authors' own R.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
guideYesthe protospacer, 5'→3', without the PAM. Matched exactly against the read's own base calls; the coordinates it lands on come back in the result.
trim3Nolast base of the read the background model may be fitted on, 1-based inclusive. Pair it with `trim5`.
trim5Nofirst base of the read the background model may be fitted on, 1-based inclusive. GIVE BOTH BOUNDS OR NEITHER — upstream errors on a lone one rather than filling the other in. Left unset, upstream's automatic rule runs: drop the first 20 bases, then drop every base whose total peak height is under a tenth of the mean of what is left. The window is an INPUT to the answer, not a view: it is what the noise is estimated from, so tightening it lowers the cut-off.
_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.
documentNowhich trace file to read: its name (`read_F.ab1`) or its project file id. LEAVE IT EMPTY to run on the chromatogram tab that is open. A file id is project-specific, so a template ships this unset.
guide_endNothe other end of an explicit placement, 1-based inclusive. Pair it with `guide_start`.
guide_startNoplace the guide yourself, 1-based inclusive in the read's own base calls, instead of matching it exactly. GIVE BOTH BOUNDS OR NEITHER. This is what a read carrying a sequencing error inside the protospacer needs: the analysis tests the bases you point at rather than refusing the read.
p_value_cutoffNoa base is called as edited when its share of the position's signal clears this trace's own noise model at this probability. EditR's own default is 0.01.
guide_is_reverse_complementNosearch for the guide's reverse complement. A C→T edit on the guide strand then reads as G→A in the result.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
callsYesevery significant call: { guidePosition, index, guideBase, base, percent, pValue }, biggest first
editedYeswhether ANY base of the guide carries a non-reference signal above this trace's own noise. Wire it into a gate
reportYesthe whole run: every guide position with all four base percentages and p-values, the four fitted noise models and their cut-off lines. This is what makes a negative checkable — 'no editing' and 'the model could never have fired' look identical without it
topChangeYesthe biggest call as `reference→edited`, e.g. `C→T`. Empty when there is none
guideStartYes1-based position in the read's own base calls where the guide was found — what a canvas needs to draw it
topPercentYesits share of that position's total peak height, 0–100
topPositionYesthe guide position (1-based) of the biggest call, or 0 when there is none

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/non-destructive/local scope, but the description adds real behavioral context: the method is a port validated against the original R implementation, no control chromatogram is required, and the trim window is an input to the noise model rather than a display setting. It does not discuss failure modes (e.g. guide not found) or performance, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler: the operation, the input type, the key constraint, and the method provenance all land immediately. Nothing is repeated and nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 and ten richly documented parameters, the description need only justify the tool's role, which it does. Minor gaps remain around what happens when the guide fails to match and around trace selection (the description doesn't mention that `document` can be left empty to use the open chromatogram, though the schema does).

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% and the parameter docs are unusually detailed, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description itself contributes nothing parameter-specific beyond 'single Sanger trace, no control read'; the baseline 3 applies where structured fields do the work.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (quantify base editing from a single Sanger trace) and adds a scope qualifier that separates it from siblings: 'with no control read'. Citing the EditR method and its provenance further pins down what the tool is, so an agent can distinguish it from crispr_quantify_edits or tide_quantify_indels without opening the schema.

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: 'single Sanger trace, with no control read' tells the agent this is the no-control path, but it never names the alternative tool to use when a control read exists or when editing must be quantified across many reads. There are no explicit when-not-to-use exclusions.

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