Skip to main content
Glama

Jean — Molecular Biology & Genomics

antibody_antigen_contacts

Read-only

Type the ANTIBODY-ANTIGEN INTERFACE of a deposited complex: which residue of each antibody chain touches which residue of the antigen, how close, and what kind of interaction each pair makes - ionic, polar, weak polar, hydrophobic, aromatic, carbonyl, or a disulfide.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "antibody_antigen_contacts"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesthe coordinate file's contents - a PDB flat file or a PDBx/mmCIF; the format is read from the bytes, not from a name.
modelNowhich model of an ensemble to type, 1-based: conformers touch in different places, so one is typed rather than all.
_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.
antibodyChainNotype only this chain against the antigen. Left out, every chain carrying a variable domain is typed.
antigenChainsNocomma-separated chain ids to treat as the antigen. Left out, every protein chain with no variable domain is the antigen.
interactingCutoffNoatom pairs further apart than this (Å) are not reported at all; Arpeggio's own default is 5.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
byTypeYesatom pairs carrying each type over the whole interface, distance bands included
contactsYesone row per residue pair: the antibody residue (chain, author number, name, and its scheme position where it sits in a variable domain), the antigen residue, the closest atom distance, the atom-pair count, and the interaction types
residuesYeshow many residues each side contributes, per antibody chain
antigenChainsYesthe chain ids treated as the antigen
antibodyChainsYesthe chains typed, each with its variable-domain chain types

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered and the description adds that output is a per-pair interaction typing in seven named classes. It does not disclose cost, failure modes for malformed coordinates, or what happens when the chain heuristics misidentify a chain, which would be valuable for a tool that runs structure analysis.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence: the action comes first, followed by the three things returned and a compact enumeration of interaction types. No filler, nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 full parameter coverage, the description only needs to frame scope, which it does by naming the interface, the chain-level granularity, and the interaction classes. The remaining gap is guidance on prerequisite input shape (a complex that actually contains both partners), which the description leaves to inference.

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 all seven parameters are already documented, including the model selector and the 5 Å default cutoff. The description adds only the notion of 'how close' and the interaction taxonomy, which is output-oriented rather than clarifying parameter choices; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource – 'Type the ANTIBODY-ANTIGEN INTERFACE of a deposited complex' – and then enumerates exactly what is produced: residue-residue pairs per antibody chain, distances, and interaction classes. This is clearly distinct from structural siblings like read_structure or antibody_molecule, which do not type interfaces.

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 phrase 'of a deposited complex' implies the prerequisite (an antibody-antigen complex must already be loaded), and the defaulting rules for antibodyChain and antigenChains give operational guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this over read_structure, protein_profile, or other structural siblings, nor what happens when no variable domain or no antigen chain is detected.

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