Skip to main content
Glama

Jean — Molecular Biology & Genomics

bootstrap_cq

Read-only

Resampling error bars on ONE reaction's Cq. A Cq is read off a fitted model, so its uncertainty is how tightly the observations pin that model down - which propagating a measured spread cannot answer.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dropNojackknife only: observations left out of each refit. 1 is the delete-one jackknife; more is a delete-d jackknife, which is less sensitive to a single influential cycle. Only applies when scheme is jack.
seedNoR's `set.seed` value, so the interval is reproducible and citable. Advanced.
modelNothe sigmoid fitted once and REFITTED on every iteration. It is not re-chosen per resample: Cqs fitted under different models are not comparable, so a mixture over models would make the quantiles mean nothing. Values: l4 (l4 · 4-param log-logistic), l5 (l5 · + asymmetry), l6 (l6 · + linear baseline drift), l7 (l7 · + quadratic baseline), b4 (b4 · 4-param logistic (raw scale)), b5 (b5 · + asymmetry), b6 (b6 · + linear baseline drift), b7 (b7 · + quadratic baseline).l4
_filesNoThe project: record references shaped like _subject. Their records become library documents a tool names in sequences/parts/document; a trace or alignment is found by file name.
curvesYesthe amplification table: a header row, first column the cycle number and every other column one reaction's fluorescence. The same parser `call_cq` and the Curve->Cq tab use.
schemeNo`boot` resamples the fit's residuals (upstream's default); `jack` leaves observations out. The bootstrap answers "how would this Cq move under the same noise?", the jackknife "how much does any single cycle carry it?".boot
_subjectNoThe record to act on: exactly one of sequence, accession (+source), sample (an id from list_samples) or file ({name, text} or {name, base64}); record_index picks one record of several.
reactionNowhich reaction to resample, by its column name. Blank takes the first column — this is a per-reaction run by design, because at the default 200 iterations a 47-reaction plate would be 9,400 refits nobody asked for.
cq_methodNowhich Cq definition the resampled efficiency readouts report. Values: cpD2 (cpD2 · second-derivative max), cpD1 (cpD1 · first-derivative max), maxE (maxE · cycle of maximum efficiency), expR (expR · exponential region), Cy0 (Cy0 · tangent x-intercept (Guescini)), CQ (CQ · 20 % of the Cq fluorescence), maxRatio (maxRatio · spline, model-free (Shain)).cpD2
conf_levelNothe level the reported bounds are read at — 0.95 puts them at the 2.5 % and 97.5 % quantiles of the iterations.
iterationsNoeach iteration is a full nonlinear refit, so this is the run's whole cost. 100 is upstream's default and puts a 95 % bound on a single order statistic, which is why both doors open on 200.
include_readoutsNoalso resample every efficiency readout — the Cq definitions, the efficiency, the initial fluorescence — not just the model coefficients. On, because an interval on the Cq is the point; off is faster and returns coefficients alone. Advanced.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rssYesresidual sum of squares across the iterations
rmseYesresidual standard error across the iterations
modelYesthe model refitted on every iteration
reactionYesthe reaction actually resampled, named — "the first column" is not a citation
readoutsYesone row per resampled readout — Cq under each definition, efficiency, initial fluorescence — with mean, SD, median and the interval quantiles. Empty when `include_readouts` is off
confLevelYesthe level the bounds above are read at
convergedYesiterations whose refit converged — the ONLY ones any number here is computed from. Well below `iterations` is a finding about the curve, not a warning to swallow
iterationsYesiterations requested
coefficientsYesone row per model coefficient, in the model's own parameter order, same fields

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the conceptual model behind the operation (Cq read off a fitted model, uncertainty from how tightly observations pin it) but says nothing about the run's cost, which is a full nonlinear refit per iteration; that lives only in the iterations parameter description.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the operation, then the justification. The second sentence is dense but earns its place by explaining why resampling is used instead of error propagation. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

With an output schema present and a fully documented 12-parameter input schema, the description needn't explain return values or options. What it supplies is the statistical rationale and single-reaction scope; the remaining gap is that the description does not state the prerequisite pipeline (curve table from call_cq) that an agent needs before calling.

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% and the parameter docs are unusually rich (scheme, model, iterations, drop all explain their semantics), so the baseline is 3. The description contributes only the per-reaction scoping idea, not any parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema states.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: resampling error bars on ONE reaction's Cq. The capitalization of ONE signals per-reaction scope up front. It stops short of naming the sibling it supersedes (propagate_uncertainty or call_cq), so the agent must infer the distinction from the rationale rather than a direct comparison.

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 second sentence implicitly contrasts with spread propagation ("which propagating a measured spread cannot answer"), which hints at when this is the right choice, but the alternative tool is never named and there is no explicit when-not guidance. Prerequisites (that curves must come from the same parser call_cq uses) appear only in the schema, not the description.

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