Skip to main content
Glama

diversity_core_collection

Select a core collection maximizing captured allelic diversity via greedy allele-coverage selection. Outputs a ranked list of accessions with cumulative coverage and diversity fraction.

Instructions

Select a core collection that maximises captured allelic diversity.

Greedy allele-coverage selection (Core-Hunter style): repeatedly add the accession that contributes the most not-yet-captured marker-alleles. Pick the core size directly, or as fraction of all accessions (default 10%). Writes core_collection.csv (rank, accession, cumulative allele coverage) and reports the fraction of total allelic diversity the core captures.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sizeNoExplicit core-collection size (number of accessions); overrides fraction.
methodNoGenotype source: 'vcf' (full export, cached) or 'allelematrix' (paged, server-side subset).vcf
regionNoRestrict analysis to a genomic window: 'chrom' or 'chrom:start-end' (1-based).
fractionNoCore-collection size as a fraction of all accessions (default 0.1).
output_dirNoDirectory for the output CSV(s) (default ./gigwa_results/<module>/).
max_markersNoCap the number of markers analysed (evenly-spaced subsample); omit to use all.
variant_set_db_idYesBrAPI variantSetDbId identifying the run (MODULE§project§run); from list_variant_sets / list_content.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description explains the algorithm and output (core_collection.csv with rank, accession, cumulative coverage, and diversity fraction), but lacks details on potential side effects, permissions, or whether data is modified. It mentions 'writes' files but does not clarify if it is destructive.

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 concise and front-loaded, with a clear first sentence stating purpose, followed by algorithm and output details. It uses minimal words but is informative, though could be slightly more structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, output schema exists) and no annotations, the description covers the algorithm, inputs, and outputs adequately. It explains the greedy selection method and the files produced, making it largely complete for an informed user.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the description adds minimal new info for parameters. It reinforces that 'size' overrides 'fraction' and explains the default fraction, but this is already in 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?

The description clearly states the action 'Select a core collection' and the resource 'core collection', with a specific algorithm 'Greedy allele-coverage selection (Core-Hunter style)'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like diversity_pca or diversity_fst by focusing on core collection selection.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is for selecting a core set maximizing allelic diversity, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. It assumes the user understands the context from the algorithm description.

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/gkanogiannis/Gigwa-MCP'

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