Skip to main content
Glama

submit_descriptors_workflow

Calculate molecular descriptors including physical properties, electronic properties, and structural features for chemical compounds using Rowan's computational chemistry platform.

Instructions

Submit a molecular descriptors calculation workflow using Rowan v2 API.

Args: initial_molecule: SMILES string or molecule object for descriptor calculation 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.

Calculates a comprehensive set of molecular descriptors including:

  • Physical properties (MW, logP, TPSA, etc.)

  • Electronic properties (HOMO/LUMO, dipole moment, etc.)

  • Structural features (rotatable bonds, H-bond donors/acceptors, etc.)

  • Topological indices

Returns: Workflow object representing the submitted workflow

Example: # Basic descriptor calculation result = submit_descriptors_workflow( initial_molecule="CC(=O)Nc1ccc(O)cc1" )

# For complex molecule
result = submit_descriptors_workflow(
    initial_molecule="CN1C=NC2=C1C(=O)N(C(=O)N2C)C",
    name="Caffeine Descriptors"
)

This workflow typically takes 10-30 seconds to complete.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
initial_moleculeYesSMILES string of the molecule to calculate descriptors for
nameNoWorkflow name for identification and trackingDescriptors 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
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key traits: it's a submission workflow (implies mutation/creation), includes credit usage constraints ('Maximum credits to spend'), and specifies typical runtime ('10-30 seconds to complete'). However, it doesn't mention permissions, error handling, or whether the workflow is reversible, leaving some gaps.

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 clear sections (Args, Calculates, Returns, Example) and front-loaded purpose. It includes useful details like descriptor types and examples, but the list of descriptor categories could be more concise. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste, though slightly verbose in parts.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description does a good job covering the tool's context: it explains what the tool does, lists parameters with examples, describes output ('Workflow object'), and includes behavioral details like credit limits and runtime. However, it lacks information on error cases or how to handle the returned workflow object, leaving minor gaps.

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 adds minimal value beyond the schema, such as clarifying that 'folder_uuid' uses a default folder if empty and 'max_credits' of 0 means no limit, but these are largely redundant. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the 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 specific action ('Submit a molecular descriptors calculation workflow') and resource ('using Rowan v2 API'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'submit_admet_workflow' or 'submit_basic_calculation_workflow' by focusing on descriptor calculation. It provides a comprehensive list of descriptor types being calculated, making the purpose explicit and differentiated.

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 (e.g., basic descriptor calculation, complex molecule) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'submit_basic_calculation_workflow' or 'batch_submit_workflow'. It mentions typical completion time (10-30 seconds), which offers some contextual guidance but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.

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