Skip to main content
Glama
berntpopp
by berntpopp

Request Tolerance Landscape

request_tolerance_landscape
Idempotent

Initiate or confirm a missense tolerance landscape build for a human transcript, returning a poll handle to track progress until ready.

Instructions

Submit (or re-confirm) a MetaDome tolerance-landscape build for a versioned transcript and return a poll handle. status='ready' means the landscape is pre-built; status='processing' means a cold build is running (up to ~1 hour) -- poll get_tolerance_landscape with poll_after_s until it is ready. Idempotent. Signature: request_tolerance_landscape(transcript_id=, response_mode=).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
response_modeNoVerbosity: minimal|compact|standard|full (default compact).compact
transcript_idYesA versioned Ensembl transcript id (the .N version suffix is required), e.g. ENST00000269305.4. Resolve a gene symbol with resolve_transcript first.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hintNo
_metaNo
fieldNo
job_idNo
statusNo
messageNo
successYes
eta_hintNo
retryableNo
candidatesNo
error_codeNo
poll_after_sNo
data_versionsNo
transcript_idNo
recovery_actionNo
cold_build_warningNo
recommended_citationNo
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint, readOnlyHint, destructiveHint; description adds value by explaining asynchronous behavior and polling, without contradiction.

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?

Two sentences plus a signature line, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words.

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?

For an async build tool, description explains polling, statuses, and referencing sibling tool; output schema exists so return details not needed.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters; description only repeats signature, adding no extra meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states it submits or re-confirms a build, returns a poll handle, and distinguishes from sibling get_tolerance_landscape by explaining the polling pattern.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on handling processing status and idempotency, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives beyond referencing get_tolerance_landscape.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/berntpopp/metadome-link'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server