MCP Sequence Simulation Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no ambiguity. Tools target specific simulation tasks: sequence generation (DNA/protein), evolution (evolve/mutate), phylogeny simulation, and FASTQ file generation. The descriptions clearly differentiate their scopes, preventing misselection.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., evolve_sequence, generate_dna_sequence, simulate_fastq_file). The naming convention is uniform throughout, using snake_case and clear action-object pairs, making the tool set predictable and readable.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, the count is well-scoped for a sequence simulation server. Each tool earns its place by covering key aspects: sequence generation, mutation, evolution, phylogeny, and FASTQ simulation. This provides a focused yet comprehensive surface without being overwhelming.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers core sequence simulation workflows effectively, including generation, mutation, evolution, phylogeny, and sequencing data. A minor gap is the lack of tools for analyzing or visualizing simulated data, but agents can work around this as the surface supports essential simulation tasks.
Average 3/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under BSD 2-Clause "Simplified" License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only states the simulation action without detailing traits like computational intensity, output format implications, or side effects. It misses opportunities to explain what 'evolve' entails beyond the basic parameters.
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 description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It earns its place by succinctly conveying the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address behavioral aspects, output expectations, or usage context, leaving significant gaps for a tool with high parameter count and evolutionary simulation complexity.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining interactions between parameters or simulation mechanics, resulting in a baseline score.
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 clearly states the action ('simulate evolution') and resource ('sequences over multiple generations'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'mutate_sequence' or 'simulate_phylogeny', which might involve similar evolutionary concepts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about scenarios where evolutionary simulation is appropriate compared to simpler mutation or generation tools, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It mentions 'random' generation but doesn't explain what makes sequences random, whether results are deterministic with seeds, performance characteristics, or output structure. For a generation tool with 6 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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 description is a single, efficient sentence that immediately communicates the core functionality. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a generation tool with well-documented parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a generation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (sequences, metadata), how parameters interact, or behavioral constraints. The high parameter count and lack of structured output information create significant gaps in understanding.
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 the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying parameters control the generation process. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding of how parameters interact or affect results.
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 clearly states the verb 'generate' and resource 'random DNA sequences', making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'evolve_sequence' or 'mutate_sequence' by focusing on generation rather than modification. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'generate_protein_sequence' beyond the resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'generate_protein_sequence' for proteins or 'simulate_fastq_file' for file output. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or scenarios where other tools might be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Apply mutations' but does not explain what this entails beyond the basic action. It lacks details on permissions, side effects, rate limits, or output behavior, which are critical for a mutation tool. The description is minimal and does not compensate for the absence of annotations.
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 description is extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence: 'Apply mutations to DNA or protein sequences.' It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words or complexity, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a mutation tool with 9 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not address behavioral aspects like safety, permissions, or output format implications, nor does it provide usage context. For a tool that modifies sequences, more detail is needed to guide the agent effectively, making this inadequate.
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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how mutations are applied or the implications of parameters. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not enhance parameter understanding.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Apply mutations to DNA or protein sequences.' It specifies the verb ('apply mutations') and the resource ('DNA or protein sequences'), making the function unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'evolve_sequence' or 'generate_dna_sequence,' which might have overlapping or related functions, preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools, context for application, or any exclusions. Usage is implied only by the tool's name and description, leaving the agent to infer when this is appropriate without explicit direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'simulate' implies generation rather than modification of existing data, it doesn't address critical behavioral aspects: whether this is a read-only operation, what computational resources it requires, whether it's deterministic with the seed parameter, or what the output looks like beyond format options.
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 description is extremely concise at just 5 words: 'Simulate phylogenetic tree and sequence evolution'. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and contains zero wasted words or redundant information. Every word earns its place in communicating the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (sequences? trees? both?), doesn't provide behavioral context about computational requirements or limitations, and doesn't help users understand when to choose this over sibling tools. The 100% schema coverage helps, but the description itself lacks completeness for such a sophisticated simulation 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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description doesn't compensate with any higher-level explanation of parameter relationships or typical usage patterns.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Simulate phylogenetic tree and sequence evolution'. This specifies both the tree simulation and sequence evolution components, making it more specific than just 'simulate phylogeny'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'evolve_sequence' or 'mutate_sequence', which might have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'evolve_sequence', 'generate_dna_sequence', and 'mutate_sequence', there's no indication of how this tool differs in application or which scenarios warrant its use over those alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'generate random protein sequences' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a deterministic or stochastic process, computational requirements, rate limits, or what the output looks like (e.g., format details beyond schema). The mention of 'random' and 'reproducible' via seed hints at behavior, but lacks depth for a tool with 6 parameters.
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 description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part ('generate random protein sequences with specified parameters') contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.
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?
Given 6 parameters with full schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the 'what' (generate protein sequences) but lacks context on behavior, output format implications, or integration with sibling tools, leaving gaps for an AI agent to navigate usage effectively.
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%, providing detailed descriptions for all 6 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implying that parameters customize the generation. No additional semantic context or examples are given, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 clearly states the verb ('generate') and resource ('protein sequences'), specifying they are 'random' with 'specified parameters'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'generate_dna_sequence' by specifying protein sequences, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'evolve_sequence' or 'mutate_sequence' in terms of generation vs. modification.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'evolve_sequence' or 'mutate_sequence'. It mentions 'specified parameters' but doesn't clarify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions 'realistic quality scores and error models' and cites the NEAT methodology, it doesn't describe key behavioral aspects: what the output looks like (FASTQ format details), whether the simulation is deterministic or stochastic, computational requirements, or any limitations of the implementation. For an 11-parameter simulation tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.
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?
The description is appropriately concise - two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality and academic foundation. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second provides citation without unnecessary elaboration. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded by explicitly mentioning the output format earlier.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex simulation tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (FASTQ file content, structure, or JSON format details), doesn't mention performance characteristics or limitations, and provides no examples of typical use cases. The absence of annotations exacerbates these gaps, making the description inadequate for guiding effective tool use.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. It provides general context about the NEAT methodology but no additional details about individual parameters. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Simulate FASTQ sequencing reads with realistic quality scores and error models based on NEAT methodology.' It specifies the verb ('simulate'), resource ('FASTQ sequencing reads'), and methodology, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'evolve_sequence' or 'generate_dna_sequence' which don't mention FASTQ format or quality scores.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools or suggest scenarios where this simulation approach is preferred over other sequence generation tools. The citation adds academic context but doesn't offer practical usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-sequence-simulation MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/coreymhudson/mcp-sequence-simulation/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/coreymhudson/mcp-sequence-simulation)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-sequence-simulation MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/coreymhudson/mcp-sequence-simulation/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/coreymhudson/mcp-sequence-simulation)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/coreymhudson/mcp-sequence-simulation'

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