Skip to main content
Glama

submit_admet_workflow

Predict drug-like properties and pharmacokinetic behavior for molecules using ADMET-AI to assess absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion, and toxicity early in drug discovery.

Instructions

Submit an ADMET workflow to predict drug-like properties using ADMET-AI.

Args: initial_molecule: SMILES string representing the molecule name: Workflow name for identification and tracking folder_uuid: UUID of folder to organize this workflow. Empty string uses default folder. max_credits: Maximum credits to spend on this calculation. 0 for no limit.

ADMET (Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, Excretion, Toxicity) predictions help assess drug-likeness and pharmacokinetic properties of molecules early in the drug discovery process.

Uses the ADMET-AI model to predict various pharmacokinetic properties automatically.

Returns: Workflow object representing the submitted workflow

Examples: # Predict ADMET properties for aspirin result = submit_admet_workflow( initial_molecule="CC(=O)Nc1ccc(O)cc1", name="Aspirin ADMET" )

# Predict ADMET properties for caffeine
result = submit_admet_workflow(
    initial_molecule="CN1C=NC2=C1C(=O)N(C(=O)N2C)C",
    name="Caffeine ADMET"
)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
initial_moleculeYesSMILES string of the molecule for ADMET property prediction
nameNoWorkflow name for identification and trackingADMET Workflow
folder_uuidNoUUID of folder to organize this workflow. Empty string uses default folder
max_creditsNoMaximum credits to spend on this calculation. 0 for no limit
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool 'submits' a workflow, implying it initiates a calculation that may consume resources (credits), and it mentions tracking via workflow name and folder. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits such as whether this is an asynchronous operation, expected runtime, error handling, or what happens if credits are exceeded. The description adds some context but is incomplete for a submission tool.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is well-structured with sections for purpose, args, returns, and examples, making it easy to scan. However, it includes redundant information (e.g., repeating parameter details already in schema) and could be more concise by focusing on value-added content. The ADMET explanation is useful but slightly verbose.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (submission workflow with 4 parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose, parameters, and returns at a high level, but it lacks details on behavioral aspects like async handling, error cases, or output structure. The examples help but do not fully compensate for missing context.

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 all parameters thoroughly. The description repeats parameter information in the 'Args' section but does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining SMILES format nuances or credit usage implications. It meets the baseline for high schema coverage without enhancing parameter understanding.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verb ('submit') and resource ('ADMET workflow'), and it distinguishes this tool from siblings by specifying it predicts 'drug-like properties using ADMET-AI' rather than other types of calculations like docking or protein analysis. The description goes beyond the name by explaining what ADMET stands for and its role in drug discovery.

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 description implies usage context through the ADMET explanation and examples, suggesting this is for early-stage drug discovery assessment. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'submit_basic_calculation_workflow' or other sibling tools, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites for use.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/k-yenko/rowan-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server