Skip to main content
Glama

interface_report

Idempotent

Measure protein-protein interface size by buried surface area and identify which residues form it, ranking them by buried surface and residue chemistry.

Instructions

Measures how large a protein-protein interface is, and which residues form it.

Reports buried surface area — the standard measure of how much of a complex is actually complex — by comparing each chain's solvent-accessible area free and bound. Also ranks the residues by how much surface each buries, and breaks the interface down by residue chemistry.

Interpretation: a per-side area under ~400 A^2 is usually a crystal packing contact rather than a biological interface, while over ~1000 A^2 indicates a substantial, likely specific association. These are guides from PDB-wide surveys, not a verdict — small biological interfaces exist.

For the interactions themselves — which pairs hydrogen bond, which form salt bridges — use contact_report on the same two chains.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chain_aYesFirst chain ID (e.g. "A").
chain_bYesSecond chain ID (e.g. "D").
obj_nameYesPyMOL object holding the complex (e.g. "1brs").
max_residuesNoHow many of the most-buried residues to list per chain.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.5.1

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description explains what is computed and how to interpret the numbers, but it does not address the readOnlyHint=false annotation or clarify whether the tool modifies the PyMOL session. With annotations already declaring it non-destructive and idempotent, the remaining transparency gap is the lack of any side-effect disclosure.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is front-loaded with purpose, then method, interpretation guidance, and the alternative tool. It is well organized and every sentence contributes useful context without unnecessary repetition.

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?

It covers the computational purpose, interpretation thresholds, and sibling routing, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. The main gap is that it does not explain the non-read-only annotation or any session-state effects.

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 object name, chains, and max_residues are already documented in the schema. The description adds domain context about per-chain buried area and residue ranking but does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it measures protein-protein interface size and identifies the residues forming it. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from contact_report, which is for interactions such as hydrogen bonds and salt bridges.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It clearly says to use this tool for interface size, buried surface area, residue burial ranking, and residue chemistry, while directing interaction analysis to contact_report on the same two chains. The interpretation thresholds further guide when results indicate a likely biological interface versus crystal packing.

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