BioPython MCP Server

by kmaneesh

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Hybrid

calculate_gc_content

Calculate GC content percentage and nucleotide counts for a given DNA or RNA sequence.

Instructions

Calculate the GC content of a DNA or RNA sequence.

Args: sequence: DNA or RNA sequence string

Returns: Dictionary containing GC content percentage and counts

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": {
      "sequence": "<sequence>"
    },
    "name": "calculate_gc_content"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sequence`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.8Feb 5, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the return format (dictionary with percentage and counts) but omits details like input validation, case sensitivity, potential errors, or performance considerations for long sequences.

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 short and front-loaded with the purpose. However, the args/returns block is somewhat redundant given the input schema and output schema exist. Still, it is efficient and avoids unnecessary detail.

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 the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the basic purpose and return format. However, it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details, leaving the description adequate but not fully complete.

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

Parameters4/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description's 'DNA or RNA sequence string' adds meaningful context beyond the schema's type 'string'. It clarifies acceptable input types, which is helpful for a single parameter tool.

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 'Calculate the GC content of a DNA or RNA sequence', specifying both the verb and the resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'reverse_complement' or 'translate_sequence' by focusing specifically on GC content calculation.

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, nor are any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The description simply states what it does without contextual usage advice.

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