Skip to main content
Glama

submit_docking_workflow

Submit molecular docking workflows to predict ligand binding in proteins using PDB IDs, SMILES strings, and binding pocket coordinates with configurable software and scoring options.

Instructions

Submits a Docking workflow to the API.

Args: protein: Protein for docking. Can be: 1) PDB ID string (e.g., '1HCK'), 2) Protein UUID string, 3) JSON string dict with 'pdb_id' and optional 'name' pocket: Binding pocket as JSON string "[[x1,y1,z1], [x2,y2,z2]]" defining two opposite corners of the docking box initial_molecule: SMILES string representing the ligand executable: Docking software (default: 'vina'). Options: 'vina', 'qvina2', 'smina' scoring_function: Scoring function (default: 'vinardo'). Options: 'vina', 'vinardo', 'ad4' exhaustiveness: Search exhaustiveness (default: 8). Higher values = more thorough but slower do_csearch: Whether to perform conformational search on the ligand before docking (default: False) do_optimization: Whether to optimize the ligand geometry before docking (default: False) do_pose_refinement: Whether to optimize non-rotatable bonds in output poses (default: False) 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.

Automatically handles protein creation from PDB ID and sanitization if needed.

Returns: Workflow object representing the submitted workflow

Examples: # Example 1: Using PDB ID directly result = submit_docking_workflow( protein="1HCK", # PDB ID pocket="[[103.55, 100.59, 82.99], [27.76, 32.67, 48.79]]", initial_molecule="CCC(C)(C)NC1=NCC2(CCC(=O)C2C)N1", name="CDK2 Docking" )

# Example 2: Using dict with PDB ID and custom name
result = submit_docking_workflow(
    protein='{"pdb_id": "1HCK", "name": "My CDK2 Protein"}',
    pocket="[[103.55, 100.59, 82.99], [27.76, 32.67, 48.79]]",
    initial_molecule="CCC(C)(C)NC1=NCC2(CCC(=O)C2C)N1"
)

# Example 3: Using existing protein UUID
result = submit_docking_workflow(
    protein="abc123-def456-...",  # Protein UUID
    pocket="[[103.55, 100.59, 82.99], [27.76, 32.67, 48.79]]",
    initial_molecule="CCC(C)(C)NC1=NCC2(CCC(=O)C2C)N1"
)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
proteinYesProtein UUID or PDB content/path for docking target
pocketYesJSON string defining binding pocket as [[x1,y1,z1], [x2,y2,z2]] corner coordinates
initial_moleculeYesSMILES string of the ligand molecule to dock
executableNoDocking software to use: 'vina', 'qvina2', 'smina'vina
scoring_functionNoScoring function: 'vina', 'vinardo', 'ad4'vinardo
exhaustivenessNoSearch exhaustiveness parameter (higher = more thorough, slower)
do_csearchNoWhether to perform conformer search before docking
do_optimizationNoWhether to optimize docked poses
do_pose_refinementNoWhether to optimize output poses with non-rotatable bond refinement
nameNoWorkflow name for identification and trackingDocking 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool 'automatically handles protein creation from PDB ID and sanitization if needed', which is valuable behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention critical aspects like whether this is a long-running asynchronous operation, what happens on submission failure, or any rate limits/authentication requirements.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, but includes extensive parameter documentation that largely duplicates schema information. While the examples are helpful, they add substantial length. The structure could be more efficient by focusing only on what the schema doesn't already cover.

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?

For a complex tool with 12 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides good parameter semantics and examples. However, it lacks critical context about the workflow's asynchronous nature, error handling, and relationship to sibling tools. The 'Returns' section is minimal, stating only 'Workflow object' without detailing its structure or how to track completion.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by providing concrete examples of parameter formats (PDB ID strings, JSON structures, SMILES strings), explaining what 'exhaustiveness' controls ('Higher values = more thorough but slower'), and clarifying that 'max_credits: 0' means 'no limit'. This goes well beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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

Purpose4/5

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 the specific verb 'submits' and resource 'Docking workflow to the API'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'submit_batch_docking_workflow' by focusing on single workflow submission, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other docking-related tools like 'submit_conformer_search_workflow'.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'submit_batch_docking_workflow', 'submit_conformer_search_workflow', and 'submit_pose_analysis_md_workflow', there's no indication of when this single docking submission is preferred over batch processing or other related workflows.

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