Skip to main content
Glama

jean — Molecular Biology & Genomics

melting_temperature

Read-only

The melting temperature of an oligo IN A BUFFER, UNDER A MODEL — and the working, not just the number. Nearest-neighbor (SantaLucia & Hicks 2004 · Allawi & SantaLucia 1997 · Sugimoto 1996 · Breslauer 1986), pydna's dsDNA-binding-domain model, the GC formula, the Wallace rule or NEB, over the salt correction you name, then DMSO and formamide depression under the published model you name. LOCKED NUCLEIC ACID is understood: write the probe as it is ordered, with an L after each locked base (GTCGLAACAGC), and McTigue, Peterson & Kahn's (2004) per-neighbor increments are added to the nearest-neighbor sum. Returns the per-step breakdown the panel shows, so a pipeline can read WHICH coefficient produced a ΔTm rather than a bare temperature.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modelNowhich melting model — nn_santalucia (Nearest-neighbor, SantaLucia 1997) · nn_unified (Nearest-neighbor, unified 2004) · nn_sugimoto (Nearest-neighbor, Sugimoto 1996) · nn_breslauer (Nearest-neighbor, Breslauer 1986) · nn_rna_xia (RNA/RNA, Xia 1998) · nn_rna_chen (RNA/RNA, Chen 2012 (GU wobble)) · nn_rna_freier (RNA/RNA, Freier 1986) · nn_hybrid_sugimoto (RNA/DNA hybrid, Sugimoto 1995) · bresluc_dbd (Breslauer (dsDNA-binding polymerase)) · gc (GC-based (Tm_GC)) · wallace (Wallace rule (2·AT + 4·GC)) · neb (NEB). Advanced.nn_unified
oligoYesthe oligo to melt, 5'→3'. IUPAC ambiguity codes and whitespace are tolerated; at least 2 bases. An L after a base marks it LOCKED (LNA), e.g. GTCGLAACAGC — the marker is not a base and does not count toward the length.
_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.
_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.
conditionsNothe buffer this temperature is measured in: Na⁺/K⁺/Tris/Mg²⁺/dNTP under `salt`, the strand concentrations under `oligo`, and any DMSO or formamide under `additives`. Left unset it is filled from your reaction-conditions settings, which is what the Melting Temperature panel is showing, so the two doors cannot quote different temperatures for one oligo. Advanced.
dmso_methodNowhich published DMSO depression — ahs01 (Ahsen et al. (2001), 0.75 °C per %) · mus81 (Musielski et al. (1981), 0.6 °C per %) · cul76 (Cullen and Bick (1976), 0.5 °C per %) · esc80 (Escara and Hutton (1980), 0.675 °C per %). Only read when the conditions carry DMSO. Only applies when dmso is set. Advanced.ahs01

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
gcYesGC content [%] of the oligo, weighted for ambiguity codes
tmYesmelting temperature [°C] after every correction the conditions asked for
modelYesthe model that produced it, named — never the id alone
stepsYesthe derivation, one row per correction: the base model with its table and salt method, then each additive with the degrees it removed AND the published model that set the coefficient — the same rows the panel prints, from the same generator
baseTmYesthe temperature BEFORE any additive, so a pipeline can see what DMSO or formamide cost rather than inferring it
caveatYeswhy this model's number should not be read for an oligo of this length, or empty when it can be — Wallace above its published 14–20 nt domain is the case this exists for
lockedBasesYeshow many bases of this oligo were read as LOCKED (LNA). 0 for ordinary DNA, so a pipeline can tell whether McTigue's increments were in play without parsing the steps
thermodynamicsYesΔH, ΔS and ΔG(37 °C) from the SAME table as the temperature, so a row never mixes two models. Absent for models that carry no nearest-neighbor table (GC formula, Wallace, NEB)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds useful behavioral context: it computes under published models, handles LNA markers without counting them as bases, applies salt correction and additives in sequence, and returns a per-step breakdown rather than a bare number. It does not discuss rate limits or constraints, but goes well beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core purpose is front-loaded, but the description is a dense wall of text that duplicates many model and method names already in the schema. Every sentence is not strictly earning its place; the long citation list and repeated parameter enumerations could be trimmed.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema covering return values, full schema description coverage, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies all remaining context an agent needs: model options, LNA notation, buffer conditions fallback, and the returned breakdown. Nothing essential is missing.

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 every parameter, including model enums, LNA notation, salt details, and additive methods. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema states, though it reinforces the model application order and LNA interpretation.

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+resource ('melting temperature of an oligo in a buffer under a model') and adds scope ('the working, not just the number'). However, it never names or distinguishes itself from close siblings like melt_profile or analyze_melt_curves, so an agent must infer which one to use.

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?

Provides implied context that this is the computation behind the Melting Temperature panel and useful for pipelines needing coefficient breakdown, but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool guidance.

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