Skip to main content
Glama

submit_basic_calculation_workflow

Submit quantum chemistry calculations for molecules to compute energies, optimize geometries, and perform fundamental computational tasks using configurable methods and engines.

Instructions

Submit a basic calculation workflow using Rowan v2 API.

Performs fundamental quantum chemistry calculations with configurable methods and computational tasks. Returns a workflow object for tracking progress.

Examples: # Isoprene Energy result = submit_basic_calculation_workflow( initial_molecule="CC(=C)C=C", method="uma_m_omol", tasks='["energy"]', engine="omol25", name="Isoprene Energy" )

# Constrained Butane
result = submit_basic_calculation_workflow(
    initial_molecule="CCCC",
    method="gfn2_xtb",
    tasks='["optimize"]',
    engine="xtb",
    name="Constrained Butane"
)

# Aspirin optimization
result = submit_basic_calculation_workflow(
    initial_molecule="CC(=O)Oc1ccccc1C(=O)O",
    method="uma_m_omol",
    tasks='["optimize"]',
    engine="omol25",
    name="Aspirin Optimization"
)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
initial_moleculeYesSMILES string or molecule JSON for quantum chemistry calculation
methodNoComputational method (e.g., 'gfn2-xtb', 'uma_m_omol', 'b3lyp-d3bj')uma_m_omol
tasksNoJSON array or comma-separated list of tasks (e.g., '["optimize"]', 'optimize, frequencies')
engineNoComputational engine: 'omol25', 'xtb', 'psi4'omol25
nameNoWorkflow name for identification and trackingBasic Calculation 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
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'returns a workflow object for tracking progress', which is useful, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this is a long-running async operation, error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or cost implications (despite 'max_credits' parameter). For a submission tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 a concise opening statement followed by helpful examples. However, the examples are lengthy (taking most of the text) and could be more efficiently integrated; some sentences in the examples don't directly enhance understanding beyond the first one.

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 (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose and provides examples, but lacks output details, error handling, and behavioral context needed for a submission tool. It's adequate but has clear gaps in guiding the agent on what to expect after invocation.

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 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it mentions 'configurable methods and computational tasks' which aligns with the 'method' and 'tasks' parameters, but provides no additional syntax, format, or semantic details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verbs ('submit', 'performs') and resources ('basic calculation workflow', 'quantum chemistry calculations'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it's for 'fundamental' calculations with 'configurable methods and computational tasks', unlike specialized workflows like docking or protein analysis.

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 through examples showing specific scenarios (e.g., energy calculation, optimization), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'submit_conformer_search_workflow' or 'submit_docking_workflow'. It doesn't state prerequisites or exclusions.

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