Skip to main content
Glama

Jean — Molecular Biology & Genomics

simulate_taqman_curve

Read-only

Predict the amplification curve a hydrolysis-probe (TaqMan) qPCR assay will draw, and the Cq read off it, from the assay's own sequences and its thermocycling programme - a forward simulation, not a fit to data.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
betaNostretching exponent of the decay, exp(-(k_deg*t)^beta). Upstream ships 1, which makes the decay a plain exponential. Advanced.
k_degNopolymerase thermal-decay rate constant. Upstream SHIPS this at 0 - no decay, efficiency identically 1 at every cycle - with its own code commenting 'original value: 1.9e-4'. Left at 0 you are running the model upstream ships; raise it and the plateau bends down. Advanced.
probeYesthe hydrolysis probe, 5'->3'. Fluorescence in this model IS probe cleavage, so without a probe there is no curve to predict - this is a TaqMan simulator and not a SYBR one.
_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.
cyclesNohow many cycles to run. In cycles.
_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.
ampliconYesthe amplicon, forward strand, 5'->3'. The whole product, not the region between the primers: the amplicon's own re-annealing is a species in the model and it competes with the primers for template late in the run, which is what bends the plateau.
probe_molarNoprobe concentration, mol/L (150 nM in upstream's assay). It caps the plateau: fluorescence cannot exceed the probe you put in. In M. Advanced.
annealing_timeNoseconds at the annealing temperature. A real parameter of the answer, not a formality: the system is NOT at equilibrium when a 15 s anneal ends, so a longer hold binds measurably more. In s.
forward_primerYesforward primer, 5'->3'.
reverse_primerYesreverse primer, 5'->3'.
primer_dimer_dgNofree energy of the forward-reverse primer dimer, kcal/mol, negative. NOT computed for you, and that is deliberate: the paper computes it with NUPACK and says why nothing simpler does - 'the nonspecific binding of P_for and P_rev into PD is not in perfect match', so nearest-neighbour formulas are the wrong class of tool. primer3's `thal`, which this repo does ship, is that class: on upstream's own C22 assay it returns -4.40 against upstream's -8.880. Pass the `thal` figure if it is the best you have and treat the answer as carrying that estimator's name, or pass a NUPACK value to reproduce the paper. In kcal/mol.
template_copiesNotemplate copies in the reaction at cycle 0. This is the quantity Cq is a readout OF, so sweeping it is how you get a standard curve out of this node. In copies.
denaturation_timeNoseconds at the denaturation temperature. It reaches the answer only through polymerase decay, so with `k_deg` at 0 it changes nothing. In s. Advanced.
forward_primer_molarNoforward primer concentration, mol/L (450 nM in upstream's assay). In M. Advanced.
reverse_primer_molarNoreverse primer concentration, mol/L (460 nM in upstream's assay). In M. Advanced.
annealing_temperatureNoannealing temperature, °C. Every binding constant in the model is evaluated here, so this is the single knob that moves the whole curve rather than scaling it. In °C.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cqYesthe predicted Cq, as a whole cycle number - upstream reads it as the cycle maximising the curve's SECOND derivative, so it is not interpolated and never fractional
notesYeswhat the run wants said about itself, in the panel's own words
plateauYesthe final cycle's reading - what the curve levels off at, capped by the probe you put in
curvePlotYesthe predicted amplification curve as a plot, one point per cycle
estimatorsYeswhich model produced each quoted quantity, so nothing here is read as upstream's when it is ours (§10 r11)
fluorescenceYesthe predicted curve: one reading per cycle, in mol/L of cleaved probe
probeConsumedYesfraction of the probe cleaved by the last cycle. Near 1 the plateau is probe-limited and the Cq is still trustworthy; well under it something else stopped the reaction

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint=false/destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral trait beyond them: this is a mechanistic forward simulation, not a regression on measured data, which tells the agent the output is model-dependent and that upstream-defined defaults (e.g. k_deg=0) shape the result. It says nothing about runtime cost or determinism, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 the two outputs, closing with the differentiator after an em-dash. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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 17-parameter model with nested objects, the presence of a 100%-covered schema, an output schema, and annotations means the description need not restate parameters or return values. Its remaining gap is that it does not hint at the modelling assumptions the schema flags (probe-limited plateau, non-equilibrium anneal), which would help an agent interpret surprising results.

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 17 parameters carry detailed per-field semantics (units, upstream defaults, which knobs are 'Advanced'), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description itself mentions only that sequences and a thermocycling programme are the inputs and adds no syntax, format, or default guidance beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Predict the amplification curve a hydrolysis-probe (TaqMan) qPCR assay will draw, and the Cq read off it" states a specific verb (predict/simulate) plus two concrete outputs (curve and Cq), and the qualifier "not a fit to data" separates it cleanly from fit-based siblings such as call_cq or bootstrap_cq. An agent can pick this tool over those without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives a clear selection context: use this when you have the assay's own sequences and thermocycling programme and want a forward prediction rather than an empirical Cq call. It does not name the alternative tools (call_cq, design_qpcr_assay) explicitly or state exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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