ImmunoGraph MCP

validate_thresholds

Read-onlyIdempotent

Evaluate candidate records against a versioned biological threshold profile to report rule outcomes before categorization or final constraint application; missing evidence is flagged, not assumed.

Instructions

Evaluate the versioned hard biological threshold profile against supplied candidates. Use before categorization or final constraint application; this reports rule outcomes rather than ranking candidates. Missing evidence is represented in the rule results instead of invented as a pass.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`runId`	Yes	Caller-chosen identifier linking this call to one research run.
`candidates`	Yes	Caller-supplied candidate records; required nested fields depend on this operation.
`ruleProfileVersion`	Yes	Version of the biological constraint rule profile.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	Yes	Whether execution completed successfully.
`data`	No	Tool-specific result fields on success.
`meta`	Yes	Run identifiers, timings, and input/output hashes.
`error`	No	Structured failure on unsuccessful execution.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedv0.2.1Oct 31, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / candidates / description

Added value: +"Caller-supplied candidate records; required nested fields depend on this operation."

addedInput schema / properties / candidates / items / properties / candidateType / description
```
Added value: +"MHC class or candidate category this operation applies to."
```

addedInput schema / properties / ruleProfileVersion / description

Added value: +"Version of the biological constraint rule profile."

addedInput schema / properties / runId / description

Added value: +"Caller-chosen identifier linking this call to one research run."

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "additionalProperties": {},
+      "description": "Tool-specific result fields on success.",
+      "properties": {},
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "error": {
+      "additionalProperties": false,
+      "description": "Structured failure on unsuccessful execution.",
+      "properties": {
+        "category": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "code": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "details": {
+          "additionalProperties": {},
+          "properties": {},
+          "type": "object"
+        },
+        "message": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "retryable": {
+          "type": "boolean"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "code",
+        "category",
+        "message",
+        "retryable"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "meta": {
+      "additionalProperties": {},
+      "description": "Run identifiers, timings, and input/output hashes.",
+      "properties": {
+        "completedAt": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "durationMs": {
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "inputHash": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "outputHash": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "requestId": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "runId": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "startedAt": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "toolName": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "toolVersion": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "requestId",
+        "runId",
+        "toolName",
+        "toolVersion",
+        "startedAt",
+        "inputHash"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "ok": {
+      "description": "Whether execution completed successfully.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "ok",
+    "meta"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.2.0Oct 31, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: it reports rule outcomes only, and missing evidence is surfaced in results rather than being assumed to pass. That last point materially changes how an agent should interpret output. It does not describe determinism guarantees tied to the versioned profile, so it is not a full 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the operation, then ordering guidance, then the key behavioral caveat. No sentence is redundant and nothing is buried after preamble.

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 values need not be explained, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The description adds the crucial missing-evidence semantics and the pipeline position. It leaves open where a valid ruleProfileVersion value comes from, a minor gap for a versioned-rule tool.

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 all three parameters and the deep candidate structure are already documented. The description only indirectly gestures at ruleProfileVersion via 'versioned hard biological threshold profile' and says nothing about runId or candidate fields. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Evaluate the versioned hard biological threshold profile against supplied candidates'), so the operation is unambiguous. It further separates itself from ranking-style siblings by stating it 'reports rule outcomes rather than ranking candidates.' It does not name the closest siblings (apply_constraint_rules, categorize_candidates) directly, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

'Use before categorization or final constraint application' gives explicit ordering guidance that maps onto the categorize_candidates and apply_constraint_rules siblings. The clause 'rather than ranking candidates' functions as an implicit when-not, steering agents away from using it for ordering. It stops short of naming tools or stating preconditions for the runId/profile version.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server