Skip to main content
Glama

Jean — Molecular Biology & Genomics

read_rdml_run

Read-only

Read an instrument's RDML export - the open qPCR exchange standard, v1.0 to v1.4 - and hand back one run's contents as the same tables every other qPCR tool here takes.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
runNowhich run to read, 0-based across every experiment in the file in document order. A file routinely holds several; `summary` lists them all whatever this is set to.
tableNowhich table to return for the chosen run. `summary` reads the file without importing anything. The other four are exactly what the panel's four `Send to ...` buttons produce, so a value imported here and one imported there cannot differ. Values: summary (Summary - what every run in the file holds), curves (Amplification curves - Cycle,<reaction>,...), cq (Instrument Cq values - the wide Ct table plus its group column), genorm (Instrument Cq values - long Target,Sample,Cq), melt (Melting curves - Temperature,<reaction>,...), partitions (Digital PCR partition counts - Well,Sample,Target,Positives,Partitions).summary
_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.
rdml_xmlYesthe RDML document as XML text - the `rdml_data.xml` member of a `.rdml` archive, or a bare `.xml` export. Not base64 and not a file path.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rowsYesdata rows in `table`, excluding its header
runsYesevery run in the file and what it holds - reactions, curves, melt curves, instrument Cq values, partition counts, the declared partition volumes, targets and samples
tableYesthe chosen run's table, as the text the matching tool's own parser takes. Empty when the run has nothing of that kind - which is a fact about the run, not a failure
groupsYesfor `cq`: one sample name per row of the Ct table, already aligned to it. The group column relative quantification needs
omittedYeswhat the import deliberately left out and why - wells whose Cq is RDML's -1 `not available`, and samples whose replicates do not square up across targets. Never padded and never zero-filled (a Ct of 0 is a fabricated measurement)
versionYesthe RDML version the file declares (1.0-1.4). The reader's behaviour differs by version and a table without it is not reproducible

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavior beyond that: only one run is returned per call, version support is bounded to RDML v1.0-v1.4, and the output is guaranteed identical to what the panel's export buttons produce, implying no divergent parsing.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. The format/version qualifier and the output-equivalence claim each carry information an agent needs.

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?

For a read-only tool with a full input schema, an output schema, and annotations, the description covers what it reads, which versions, and what it returns in shape terms. The only meaningful gap is routing guidance against the other read_* loader tools.

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 run index, the table enum and its six values, and the raw-XML requirement are all documented there. The description adds nothing about the parameters themselves, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (read) plus resource (RDML export, qPCR run) and pins the standard and version range (v1.0-v1.4). The closing clause 'the same tables every other qPCR tool here takes' signals output compatibility, though it doesn't name a concrete sibling to differentiate against.

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?

Implied usage is clear enough: you have instrument RDML XML and want it in the panel's standard table form. But there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, e.g. no pointer away from this tool when the file is mzML/MGF, and no prerequisite that the XML must come from a .rdml archive or bare export (that only appears in the schema).

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