Skip to main content
Glama

input_sensitivity

Read-onlyIdempotent

How far plasma CL moves as each input is varied over a range, e.g. a predicted fu,p over its 50% range.

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": {
      "clint": "<clint>",
      "fu_mic": "<fu_mic>",
      "fu_p": "<fu_p>",
      "species": "<species>"
    },
    "name": "input_sensitivity"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rbNoBlood-to-plasma concentration ratio. fu_b = fu_p / Rb. Output is blood clearance.
fu_pYesUnbound fraction in plasma (0–1). Plasma protein binding correction.
clintYesIntrinsic clearance (µL/min/mg microsomal protein). Use ge=0: zero clearance is physiologically valid.
modelNoIVIVE model. well-stirred (venous equilibrium) or parallel-tube (sinusoidal perfusion).well-stirred
fu_micYesUnbound fraction in microsomes (0–1). Corrects for non-specific microsomal binding.
speciesYesSpecies for physiological parameters (Qh, MPPGL, liver weight).
assay_typeNoAssay type for CLint scaling. microsomes: uses MPPGL (mg/g) × 1e-3; hepatocytes: uses HPGL (×10⁶ cells/g) × 1e-3.microsomes
fu_p_rangeNoA predicted fu,p carries its 50% range; pass it to see what it costs.
clint_rangeNoCLint range in the assay's units, e.g. {"low": 10, "high": 40}.
fu_mic_rangeNofu,mic range (0–1), e.g. {"low": 0.5, "high": 0.9}.
correction_idNoSaved lab correction (/api/correction-equations) to apply. Must match species and assay_type. Corrects predicted plasma CL and replaces the reference band with one from the lab's compounds.
clint_censoredNoSet when the assay reported CLint below its limit of quantification and `clint` is that limit rather than a measurement. CLint then lies in [0, clint), so every clearance output is an upper bound: `upper_bound` is true, no observed-CL band is returned, and the clint_below_loq flag fires.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / $defs / InputRange / properties / high / description
      Added value: +"High end, in the input's own units, e.g. 0.2 for fu,p."
    • addedInput schema / $defs / InputRange / properties / low / description
      Added value: +"Low end, in the input's own units, e.g. 0.05 for fu,p."
    • addedInput schema / properties / clint_range / description
      Added value: +"CLint range in the assay's units, e.g. {\"low\": 10, \"high\": 40}."
    • addedInput schema / properties / fu_mic_range / description
      Added value: +"fu,mic range (0–1), e.g. {\"low\": 0.5, \"high\": 0.9}."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world computation. The description adds the useful behavioral framing that the tool varies inputs over ranges to measure plasma CL sensitivity, but it does not describe the return format or how outputs behave when multiple ranges are supplied.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The core sensitivity concept is stated immediately, followed by a compact illustrative example.

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?

The parameter schema is rich and fully described, and annotations cover safety behavior, so the description does not need to repeat those details. However, this is a complex 12-parameter computation with no output schema, and the description does not explain the return value structure or how the range inputs affect the result beyond the high-level 'how far plasma CL moves' phrase.

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 already documents all parameters, including ranges, units, defaults, and enum meanings. The description only reinforces the range concept with one fu,p example and adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 that this tool computes how far plasma CL moves as each input is varied over a range, with a concrete fu,p example. It is specific about the metric and input perturbation, but it does not name or differentiate itself from sibling tools such as calc_clhep or predict_inputs.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'as each input is varied over a range' and by the example of a predicted fu,p over its 50% range. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to calc_clhep or other alternatives.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources