Skip to main content
Glama

Jean — Molecular Biology & Genomics

miqe_checklist

Read-only

The MIQE 2.0 checklist for a qPCR paper (Bustin et al. 2025, Clin Chem 71:634, Table 1): every item in its five sections, with your answers.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
_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.
answersNoanswers by item id, e.g. {"5.8": {"provided": "yes", "description": "Results, Table 2: standard curve over five tenfold dilutions"}, "3.5": {"provided": "no", "description": "DNase-treated RNA validated DNA-free"}}. Ids run section.item over the paper's order (1 Reagent preparation · 2 Sample preparation · 3 Reverse transcription · 4 qPCR protocol · 5 Data analysis).
_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.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tsvYesthe checklist as tab-separated text under the paper's own column headers, for a journal submission
rowsYesone row per item, in the paper's order: section, id, item, footnotes, provided, description, and the gap footnote b would still send back
notesYesthe table's footnotes by letter, which qualify the items that carry them
totalYesitems in the checklist
readingYeswhat is answered and what is still owed, generated from the answers
answeredYesitems answered yes or no
incompleteYesanswers without the location (yes) or reason (no) the checklist asks for

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds provenance and scope, but it does not disclose how answers are processed, whether missing entries are flagged, or how _files/_subject affect behavior.

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 wasted wording. The citation and table reference are useful provenance rather than filler.

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?

Given the rich schema, output schema, and annotations, the description is complete enough for an agent to understand what the tool produces. It could be stronger with usage guidance or a note about how missing answers are handled, but those are minor gaps.

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 _files, answers, and _subject in detail. The description mentions 'your answers' but adds no parameter meaning or formatting details beyond what the schema provides.

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 identifies the resource as the MIQE 2.0 checklist and specifies that it covers every item in the five sections with the user's answers. It does not use a specific action verb or explicitly distinguish itself from qPCR-related siblings, but the purpose is still clear.

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?

The phrase 'for a qPCR paper' gives domain context but does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as design_qpcr_assay or call_cq. There are no explicit exclusions or routing 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