LLM을 사용하여 사용자의 WeGene 유전자 검사 보고서를 분석하는 WeGene Assistant용 MCP 서버입니다.
사용자가 권한을 부여받으면 해당 계정의 모든 보고서가 리소스로 노출됩니다.
각 개별 보고서에 액세스하기 위한 사용자 정의 wegene:// URI 체계
보고서 리소스에는 이름, 설명 및 application/json mimetype이 있습니다.
서버는 하나의 도구를 구현합니다.
wegene-oauth: 브라우저에서 WeGene Open API oAuth 프로세스 시작
사용자는 120초 안에 승인을 완료해야 LLM에서 보고서에 추가로 액세스할 수 있습니다.
wegene-get-profiles: 사용자의 WeGene 계정 아래에 있는 프로필 목록을 읽습니다.
LLM에서 사용할 프로필 이름과 ID가 반환됩니다.
wegene-get-report-info: LLM에서 사용 가능한 보고서를 알 수 있도록 보고서 메타 정보를 반환합니다.
보고서 이름, 설명, 엔드포인트 등의 목록이 반환됩니다.
wegene-get-report: 프로필에 따라 단일 보고서의 결과를 읽습니다.
WeGene의 Open API 플랫폼 에 지정된 JSON 결과를 반환합니다.
주장
report_endpoint: 검색할 보고서의 엔드포인트
report_id: 검색할 보고서의 ID
profile_id: 보고서를 검색할 프로필 ID
Related MCP server: gwas-mcp
이 프로젝트를 사용하려면 WeGene Open API 키/비밀번호가 필요합니다.
.env.example``.env 로 복사하고 파일에서 키와 비밀번호를 업데이트합니다.
Smithery 를 통해 Claude Desktop용 WeGene Assistant를 자동으로 설치하려면:
지엑스피1
이 프로젝트를 복제하세요
프로젝트의 루트 폴더 아래에서 uv sync --dev --all-extras 실행합니다.
MacOS의 경우: ~/Library/Application\ Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json
Windows의 경우: %APPDATA%/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json
구성 파일에 아래 내용을 추가합니다.
{
"mcpServers": {
"wegene-assistant": {
"command": "uv",
"args": [
"--directory",
"/path/to/wegene-assistant",
"run",
"wegene-assistant"
]
}
}
}Retrieve all the profiles under the current account
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
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. It states 'Retrieve all the profiles', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify details like whether it requires authentication (implied by 'current account'), rate limits, pagination, or what 'all' entails (e.g., scope or limitations). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse for an agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on behavior (e.g., authentication needs, data format) and doesn't differentiate from siblings. For a simple retrieval tool, it meets basic needs but could benefit from more context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The baseline for this scenario is 4, as the description doesn't need to compensate for missing param info, and it appropriately avoids unnecessary parameter explanations.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Retrieve') and resource ('profiles under the current account'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks differentiation from sibling tools like 'wegene-get-report' or 'wegene-get-report-info', which might also retrieve data but for different resources, so it doesn't fully distinguish itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 'wegene-get-report' or 'wegene-get-report-info'. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts for usage, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get a specific genetic test report from a profile
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| report_endpoint | Yes | The endpoint of the report | |
| report_id | Yes | The ID of the report | |
| profile_id | Yes | The ID of the profile |
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 'Get's a report, implying a read operation, but doesn't cover aspects like authentication needs (though 'wegene-oauth' hints at this), rate limits, error handling, or what the output contains. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, with no wasted information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and three required parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., report content format), authentication requirements (implied by sibling 'wegene-oauth'), or behavioral traits like error cases. For a tool with this complexity and lack of structured data, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (report_endpoint, report_id, profile_id) with basic descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying these are needed to retrieve a report, aligning with the baseline score when the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('specific genetic test report from a profile'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'wegene-get-report-info' or 'wegene-get-profiles', which likely retrieve different types of genetic data or metadata.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 like 'wegene-get-report-info' or 'wegene-get-profiles'. The description implies usage for retrieving a report but doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get all available report information
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
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. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't specify authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'all available report information' entails (e.g., format, scope, or limitations). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool and front-loads the essential information clearly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'report information' includes, how it's structured, or any behavioral aspects like authentication or errors. For a tool that likely returns data, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter documentation in the description. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, aligning with the schema's empty properties. A baseline of 4 is given since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't add unnecessary details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('all available report information'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'wegene-get-report', leaving some ambiguity about what distinguishes 'report information' from just 'report'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 'wegene-get-report' or 'wegene-get-profiles'. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage direction beyond the basic purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Authorizing a user's account using WeGene Open API with oAuth2 protocol and retrieve a valid access token for further use
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
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 mentions oAuth2 protocol and token retrieval, which implies authentication and potential user interaction, but doesn't detail behavioral traits such as whether this initiates a user consent flow, requires specific permissions, involves rate limits, or handles errors. For an authentication tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary details. It is front-loaded with the main action and outcome, making it easy to understand quickly. Every word earns its place, and there is no wasted information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (authentication with oAuth2), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but doesn't cover important contextual details like the token's scope, expiration, or how to use it with sibling tools. For an authentication tool, more completeness is expected to guide proper integration.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't mislead about inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Authorizing a user's account using WeGene Open API with oAuth2 protocol and retrieve a valid access token for further use.' It specifies the action (authorizing via oAuth2) and the outcome (retrieving an access token). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from its siblings (e.g., wegene-get-profiles, wegene-get-report), which focus on data retrieval rather than authentication.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by stating the token is 'for further use,' suggesting this tool should be invoked before other tools that require authentication. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., if re-authentication is needed) or any prerequisites. The context is clear but lacks detailed exclusions or comparisons.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
wegene-get-profileswegene-get-reportwegene-get-report-infowegene-oauthScored across 4 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: get-profiles retrieves account profiles, get-report fetches a specific genetic report, get-report-info lists available reports, and oauth handles authentication. There is no overlap in functionality, making tool selection unambiguous.
All tools follow a consistent 'wegene-verb-noun' pattern with hyphens, using clear verbs like 'get' and 'oauth'. This uniformity makes the tool set predictable and easy to understand.
Four tools are reasonable for a genetic data server, covering authentication, profile retrieval, and report access. It might benefit from additional operations like updating profiles or deleting data, but the core scope is well-defined.
The tools cover authentication and read operations (profiles and reports) adequately, but there are notable gaps in write operations such as creating, updating, or deleting profiles or reports. This limits the server to read-only workflows.
Your labs, wearables, DNA and notes as one health record your AI agent can read (OAuth 2.1).
Your DNA wellness report for AI: caffeine, sleep, training, nutrients. Hand-checked, no diagnoses.
Garmin data in Claude & ChatGPT via the Garmin Health API. OAuth sign-in, no password sharing.
Connect AI agents to the health, screen-time and recorded location data you choose to share from myself.md. Discover schemas, query connected phones, and read paginated JSON or JSONL cloud exports. OAuth sign-in and explicit data grants are required. Phone requests depend on connectivity and OS permissions; cloud reads require existing storage access. Owners can revoke sharing; revocation does not erase recipient copies. Privacy: https://myself.md/privacy · Terms: https://myself.md/terms · Support: cody@isolated.tech
