Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
strchive-link

strchive-link

by berntpopp
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Compare Repeat Length to STRchive Ranges

compare_repeat_length
Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare an observed repeat count for a locus against STRchive's stated ranges and list every matching range, noting motif-dependent cases where sequence identity affects classification.

Instructions

Compare an observed repeat count (repeat units, i.e. motif copies) with the ranges STRchive states for one locus and list every range that contains it (overlapping ranges can both match; none may match). Descriptive only, NOT a diagnosis. motif_dependent=true flags loci (e.g. RFC1) where motif identity, not length alone, decides the category. Signature: compare_repeat_length(locus, repeat_count).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "locus": "<locus>",
      "repeat_count": "<repeat_count>"
    },
    "name": "compare_repeat_length"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
locusYesSTRchive locus id (e.g. HD_HTT), gene symbol (e.g. HTT), or the source's disease abbreviation (e.g. SCA3). Case-insensitive. A gene with several loci (ARX, HOXA13) returns ambiguous_query with the locus ids to choose from.
repeat_countYesObserved allele size in repeat units (copies of the motif), not base pairs.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing result semantics (overlapping ranges may both match, none may match) and the motif_dependent caveat for loci like RFC1, but it never explains where that flag surfaces or what the response structure looks like.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action before caveats and signature. The parenthetical repeat-unit gloss duplicates the schema, which is the only real slack.

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

Completeness3/5

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

No output schema exists, so the description must carry return-value burden; it covers the match list, overlap and empty-result cases, and the motif flag, but does not describe the response shape or the ambiguous_query behavior that the schema hints at. Adequate but not fully self-sufficient for a comparison 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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in detail, including the repeat-units-not-base-pairs distinction and the ambiguous_query fallback for multi-locus genes. The description restates the same repeat-unit meaning and adds little beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource: compare an observed repeat count against STRchive's stated ranges for one locus and list matching ranges. It is clearly separable from siblings like get_locus and search_loci because it is a comparison operation rather than a lookup or search.

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?

Makes the usage context explicit (you must already have an observed allele count) and adds the caveat 'Descriptive only, NOT a diagnosis', which scopes when the output is appropriate. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools