Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
EVEE MCP Server

EVEE MCP Server

by goodfire-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

compare_variants

Enables side-by-side comparison of multiple variants, displaying clinical label, pathogenicity score, and top disruption. Use to rank or contrast variants efficiently.

Instructions

Compare multiple variants side-by-side.

Fetches clinical label, pathogenicity score, gene, HGVS protein, consequence, and the top-1 disruption for each. Use when the user asks to contrast, rank, or compare 2+ variants, instead of looping get_variant.

Args: variant_ids: List of variant IDs in chr:pos:ref:alt format (max 10).

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": {
      "variant_ids": "<variant_ids>"
    },
    "name": "compare_variants"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
variant_idsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses what data is fetched (clinical label, pathogenicity score, etc.) and the maximum number of variants (10). No annotations provided, so description carries full burden and does so well.

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 concise, starts with purpose, then lists fetched fields and parameter details in bullet format. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description is complete for a comparison tool with one parameter and no output schema. Could mention the output structure (e.g., a table or list) but not necessary.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description explains the variant_ids parameter format ('chr:pos:ref:alt') and limit (max 10), adding significant 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?

The description clearly states the tool compares variants side-by-side and lists the fetched fields. It differentiates from sibling 'get_variant' by explicitly saying to use instead of looping.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly says when to use (contrast, rank, compare 2+ variants) and when not (instead of looping get_variant), providing clear 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