transcriptFetch gnomAD variant data for an Ensembl transcript (ENST…), returning transcript coordinates, gene symbol, chromosome position, and per-variant allele counts (ac/an) from exome and genome datasets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dataset | No | ||
| transcript_id | Yes | Ensembl transcript id (ENST…) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| transcript | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "transcript_id": "ENST00000357144"
+ },
+ {
+ "dataset": "gnomad_r4",
+ "transcript_id": "ENST00000380152"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "transcript": {
+ "properties": {
+ "chrom": {
+ "description": "Chromosome",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "gene_symbol": {
+ "description": "Gene symbol",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "start": {
+ "description": "Transcript start position",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "stop": {
+ "description": "Transcript stop position",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "transcript_id": {
+ "description": "Ensembl transcript ID",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "variants": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "consequence": {
+ "description": "VEP consequence",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "exome": {
+ "properties": {
+ "af": {
+ "description": "Allele frequency",
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "genome": {
+ "properties": {
+ "af": {
+ "description": "Allele frequency",
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "variant_id": {
+ "description": "Variant identifier",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds context about returning data from exome and genome datasets and specific fields, but does not reveal additional behavioral aspects such as rate limits or authentication. With rich annotations, this is acceptable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the main action and includes essential return details without unnecessary fluff. Every part earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With a clear purpose, explicit output fields, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete for a straightforward fetch tool. The presence of an output schema means return values need no further elaboration.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions 'from exome and genome datasets', which hints at the dataset parameter, and the schema already describes transcript_id. However, the dataset parameter values are not fully explained in the description, leaving some ambiguity. With 50% schema coverage, the description partially compensates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool fetches gnomAD variant data for an Ensembl transcript, specifying the action (fetch), resource (transcript), and key output fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools like gene or variant by focusing on transcript-level data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when the user has an Ensembl transcript ID and wants variant data, with clear context on input and output. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusion cases, but the context is sufficiently clear for typical use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The set mixes several overlapping query surfaces: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical, ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research/discover_tools/suggest_questions all serve related retrieval/discovery purposes, and the five polymarket_* tools have similar opportunity-finding goals. Only the unusually detailed descriptions save some tools from misselection; an agent would struggle to quickly pick the right one.
Names are uniformly snake_case and mostly follow a verb_noun or prefixed_noun pattern (ask_pipeworx, validate_claim, polymarket_edges, scan_dependency). Minor inconsistencies exist — bare nouns like gene/variant/search sit alongside compound names like generate_llms_txt, and the pipeworx_ prefix isn't applied to ask_pipeworx/deep_research — but the overall style is recognizable and predictable.
36 tools is too many for a coherent server, especially since the domains are largely unrelated: 5 gnomAD genomics tools, 20+ Pipeworx/Polymarket data tools, memory CRUD, subscription management, and a couple of web-dev utilities. The count doesn't align with a single obvious scope and would overwhelm an agent selecting among them.
Within the major subdomains coverage is strong: memory has remember/recall/forget, subscriptions have full lifecycle tools, and Polymarket has edge detection plus fill-risk checking. However, there are notable gaps — no tool to fetch a pipeworx:// citation URI despite deep_research promising resolvable citations, and the gnomAD surface lacks batch queries, coverage, or constraint data for a server named Gnomad.