Skip to main content
Glama

Homology

homology
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve STRING-DB homology mappings for a list of protein identifiers (gene symbols or accessions) within a given NCBI taxonomy species (default 9606=human), returning cross-species homolog relationships.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
speciesNo
identifiersYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countYesNumber of items returned.
itemsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
      +  {
      +    "identifiers": [
      +      "9606.ENSP00000269305"
      +    ]
      +  },
      +  {
      +    "identifiers": [
      +      "9606.ENSP00000269305",
      +      "9606.ENSP00000005339"
      +    ],
      +    "species": 10090
      +  }
      +]
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
      +  "properties": {
      +    "count": {
      +      "description": "Number of items returned.",
      +      "type": "integer"
      +    },
      +    "items": {
      +      "items": {
      +        "properties": {
      +          "homologs": {
      +            "description": "List of homologous proteins",
      +            "items": {
      +              "properties": {
      +                "ncbiTaxonId": {
      +                  "description": "Homolog NCBI taxonomy ID",
      +                  "type": "number"
      +                },
      +                "preferredName": {
      +                  "description": "Homolog protein name",
      +                  "type": "string"
      +                },
      +                "stringId": {
      +                  "description": "Homolog STRING ID",
      +                  "type": "string"
      +                },
      +                "taxonName": {
      +                  "description": "Homolog species name",
      +                  "type": "string"
      +                }
      +              },
      +              "type": "object"
      +            },
      +            "type": "array"
      +          },
      +          "ncbiTaxonId": {
      +            "description": "Query NCBI taxonomy ID",
      +            "type": "number"
      +          },
      +          "preferredName": {
      +            "description": "Query protein name",
      +            "type": "string"
      +          },
      +          "stringId": {
      +            "description": "Query protein STRING ID",
      +            "type": "string"
      +          }
      +        },
      +        "type": "object"
      +      },
      +      "type": "array"
      +    }
      +  },
      +  "required": [
      +    "items",
      +    "count"
      +  ],
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open world, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context: data source (STRING-DB), accepted identifier formats (gene symbols or accessions), and default species (9606=human). This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

The entire description is a single sentence that packs all essential details: source, input types, default parameter, and output. It is front-loaded with the verb and has zero fluff.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With annotations covering safety (read-only, idempotent) and an output schema present, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and input semantics. No critical information is missing for a simple query tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining 'identifiers' as protein identifiers (gene symbols or accessions) and 'species' as an NCBI taxonomy species with a default of 9606. This adds semantic meaning beyond the bare property names and schema types.

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?

The description uses a specific verb 'Retrieve' and names the resource 'STRING-DB homology mappings', along with input types (protein identifiers, species) and output nature (cross-species homolog relationships). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'network' or 'enrichment'.

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?

It provides clear context: you use this tool when you have protein identifiers and a species and want cross-species homologs. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, 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.