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. This is the reaction Golden Gate is a special case of, and it is a different chemistry from ligate_fragments, which digests first and then ligates whatever the digest left. Reports how many sites of the FIRST enzyme each product still carries — a finished construct has none.

Input Schema

TableJSON 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

TableJSON 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

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, closed world), so the description adds real mechanism context: re-formed recognition sites get re-cut, and it reports residual sites of the FIRST enzyme per product. It does not discuss failure modes, resource limits, or performance, so 4 rather than 5.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by differentiation and result interpretation. No filler, though the parenthetical and clause stacking make it slightly heavy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be explained, and the description still clarifies how to read results. Annotations cover safety, and 10 optional params with 100% schema coverage mean little is missing; only explicit usage preconditions would push this higher.

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 the schema already documents blunt, enzymes, fragments, end_origins, end_treatments, etc. in detail. The description adds cross-parameter insight about the 'FIRST enzyme' relevant to sort_by_recognition_sites, but largely restates what the structured fields provide; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action and resource ('cut and ligate in ONE POT', pydna restriction_ligation_assembly) and explicitly positions it against the sibling ligate_fragments. An agent can distinguish the two chemistries without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Names the alternative (ligate_fragments) and the distinction that selects between them ('digests first and then ligates whatever the digest left' vs simultaneous digest-and-join). It also frames Golden Gate as a special case, giving useful context. It lacks an explicit 'use this when...' clause or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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