Skip to main content
Glama

Jean — Molecular Biology & Genomics

restriction_ligate

Cut and ligate in ONE POT (pydna restriction_ligation_assembly): every input is digested by the same enzymes inside the reaction and the pieces are joined as they appear, so a junction that re-forms a recognition site can be cut again.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bluntNoallow blunt-end joins as well as sticky.
_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.
enzymesNothe enzymes in the pot — used for every input. Left unset, the run uses your active enzyme collection.
_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.
fragmentsNothe molecules to put in the pot — wire upstream `record` outputs here, or name library documents.
end_originsNowhat MADE each input's ends, positionally. In a one-pot reaction almost every end is cut INSIDE the tube and is therefore freshly 5'-phosphorylated, so this changes the answer only for an input's own original terminus — reachable only when it arrives already sticky, which today means an annealed oligo adapter. Advanced.
circular_onlyNoreport only circular products.
end_treatmentsNothe phosphatase or kinase applied to each input, positionally. Same reach as `end_origins`: an original sticky terminus only. Advanced.
include_subjectNoalso put the node's subject in the pot.
sort_by_recognition_sitesNosort products by how many sites of the FIRST enzyme they still carry, fewest first — this floats the finished construct to the top.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
layoutYeswhere each piece and join sits ON the product: the spans the map draws
recordYesthe first product, as a record — with the sort on, the one carrying the fewest remaining sites
productsYesevery product
junctionsYesthe junctions formed, with the overhang each was made by — wire into score_overhang_fidelity
productCountYesnumber of products (>1 = the pieces go together more than one way)
nickedJunctionsYesindices of junctions left NICKED by a missing 5'-phosphate on one strand — the product still transforms and is repaired in vivo
recognitionSitesYessites of the FIRST enzyme still in the first product. 0 = finished: the reaction cannot re-cut it
partiallyDigestedYesinputs whose products were DROPPED because they would have needed a partial digest — a product that needs the enzyme to skip a site it must have cut is not a bench outcome

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 only declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false); the description adds genuine mechanism — all inputs are digested by the same enzymes in-tube and products can be re-cut if a junction regenerates a recognition site. That is real predictive behavior an agent could not derive from annotations. It stops short of noting that circular_only defaults to true, which materially shapes what comes back.

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?

One front-loaded sentence stating the operation, the implementation, and the key mechanistic caveat, with no filler. The nested parenthetical is dense but each clause carries information; it could be split for readability but nothing is redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 10 optional parameters, a nested _subject object, and defaults that silently change results (circular_only=true, include_subject=true, sort_by_recognition_sites=true), the description covers mechanism but says nothing about what is returned or how the defaults constrain output. The output schema and 100% field coverage carry most of the remaining burden, so this is adequate rather than complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description goes beyond it by clarifying the scope of the key parameter: the supplied enzymes are applied to EVERY input, not per-fragment. It also explains the mechanistic consequence that in-tube cut ends are freshly 5'-phosphorylated, which is the exact reasoning an agent needs to decide whether end_origins/end_treatments matter.

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 names a concrete operation (restriction digest plus ligation) and a concrete mode (one-pot, pydna restriction_ligation_assembly), which is far more specific than a name restatement. It implicitly separates itself from two-step digest-then-ligate workflows, though it never names the sibling tools (digest_fragments, ligate_fragments, golden_gate_assemble, gibson_assemble) that an agent must choose between.

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 only implied: the 'ONE POT' framing and the note that junctions reforming a site get re-cut communicate the scenario this tool fits, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to alternatives for non-one-pot assembly. An agent can infer intent but cannot confirm it against siblings from this text alone.

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