Skip to main content
Glama

submit_protein_cofolding_workflow

Submit protein-ligand cofolding workflows to predict 3D structures and calculate binding affinity using computational chemistry models.

Instructions

Submits a protein cofolding workflow to the API.

Args: initial_protein_sequences: JSON string list of protein sequences (amino acid strings) to cofold initial_smiles_list: JSON string list of ligand SMILES strings to include in cofolding. None for protein-only ligand_binding_affinity_index: Index of ligand in initial_smiles_list for binding affinity calculation (e.g., "0"). None skips affinity use_msa_server: Whether to use MSA (Multiple Sequence Alignment) server for improved accuracy use_potentials: Whether to use statistical potentials in the calculation compute_strain: Whether to compute the strain of the pose (if pose_refinement is enabled) do_pose_refinement: Whether to optimize non-rotatable bonds in output poses name: Workflow name for identification and tracking model: Cofolding model to use (defaults to stjames.CofoldingModel.BOLTZ_2.value) folder_uuid: UUID of folder to organize this workflow. None uses default folder. max_credits: Maximum credits to spend on this calculation. None for no limit.

Returns: Workflow object representing the submitted workflow

Example: # Torcetrapib Cofolding result = submit_protein_cofolding_workflow( initial_protein_sequences='["ASKGTSHEAGIVCRITKPALLVLNHETAKVIQTAFQRASYPDITGEKAMMLLGQVKYGLHNIQISHLSIASSQVELVEAKSIDVSIQDVSVVFKGTLKYGYTTAWWLGIDQSIDFEIDSAIDLQINTQLTADSGRVRTDAPDCYLSFHKLLLHLQGEREPGWIKQLFTNFISFTLKLVLKGQICKEINVISNIMADFVQTRAASILSDGDIGVDISLTGDPVITASYLESHHKGHFIYKDVSEDLPLPTFSPTLLGDSRMLYFWFSERVFHSLAKVAFQDGRLMLSLMGDEFKAVLETWGFNTNQEIFQEVVGGFPSQAQVTVHCLKMPKISCQNKGVVVDSSVMVKFLFPRPDQQHSVAYTFEEDIVTTVQASYSKKKLFLSLLDFQITPKTVSNLTESSSESIQSFLQSMITAVGIPEVMSRLEVVFTALMNSKGVSLFDIINPEIITRDGFLLLQMDFGFPEHLLVDFLQSLS"]', initial_smiles_list='["CCOC(=O)N1c2ccc(C(F)(F)F)cc2C@@HC[C@H]1CC"]', ligand_binding_affinity_index="0", name="Torcetrapib Cofolding", do_pose_refinement=True, compute_strain=True )

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
initial_protein_sequencesYesJSON string list of protein sequences for cofolding (e.g., '["MKLLV...", "MAHQR..."]')
initial_smiles_listNoJSON string list of SMILES for ligands to include in cofolding (e.g., '["CCO", "CC(=O)O"]'). Empty for protein-only
ligand_binding_affinity_indexNoIndex of ligand for binding affinity computation (e.g., '0'). Empty for no affinity calculation
use_msa_serverNoWhether to use multiple sequence alignment server for better structure prediction
use_potentialsNoWhether to include additional potentials in the calculation
compute_strainNoWhether to compute the strain of the pose (if pose_refinement is enabled)
do_pose_refinementNoWhether to optimize non-rotatable bonds in output poses
nameNoWorkflow name for identification and trackingCofolding Workflow
modelNoStructure prediction model to use (e.g., 'boltz_2', 'alphafold3')boltz_2
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. It effectively discloses that this is a submission tool (implying asynchronous/mutation behavior), mentions resource usage via 'max_credits', and clarifies that it returns a 'Workflow object' for tracking. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs.

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 clear purpose statement, parameter list, returns section, and example. It is appropriately sized for an 11-parameter tool, though the example is lengthy. Every sentence adds value, but some redundancy exists between the parameter list and schema.

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 complexity (11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers submission behavior and parameter usage but lacks details on the returned Workflow object structure, error conditions, or asynchronous nature. The example helps but doesn't fully compensate for missing output schema.

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 value by grouping parameters logically (e.g., listing all args with brief explanations), providing an example that illustrates practical usage, and clarifying dependencies like 'compute_strain' requiring 'do_pose_refinement'. This compensates for the schema's technical descriptions.

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 ('Submits a protein cofolding workflow') and resource ('to the API'), distinguishing it from siblings like submit_docking_workflow or submit_admet_workflow by focusing on protein-ligand cofolding. The example further clarifies the tool's unique application.

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 for protein cofolding with optional ligands, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like submit_docking_workflow or submit_basic_calculation_workflow. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and parameters.

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