Skip to main content
Glama

interface_report

Quantify protein-protein interfaces by computing buried surface area, identifying key residues, and categorizing their chemical contributions.

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

TableJSON 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

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It explains the computation technique (comparing solvent-accessible area free and bound), the ranking by buried surface, and the chemistry breakdown. It also communicates interpretive caveats ('These are guides... not a verdict'), which is useful behavioral context beyond basic read-only implications.

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 structured with a clear lead sentence, a method paragraph, interpretation guidance, and a pointer to a sibling tool. It is somewhat longer than minimal but every sentence contributes value: measurement definition, output details, thresholds, caveat, and alternative. Front-loaded with the main purpose, so it is effective without being wasteful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what is measured, how (SASA comparison), what is reported (buried surface area, residue ranking, chemistry), and how to interpret the numbers. It also directs users to contact_report for specific interaction details, covering the necessary context for correct invocation and result interpretation.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description adds context about the overall method (SASA comparison) but does not add meaning beyond the schema for individual parameters like chain_a, chain_b, or max_residues. It does not repeat or enrich parameter details, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Measures how large a protein-protein interface is, and which residues form it.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool contact_report by explicitly directing users there for hydrogen bonds and salt bridges. The method (buried surface area comparison) and outputs (residue ranking, chemistry breakdown) are specific.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: it gives numerical interpretation thresholds (under ~400 A^2 suggests crystal packing, over ~1000 A^2 suggests a specific association) and states that for interaction pairs (hydrogen bonds, salt bridges) one should 'use contact_report on the same two chains.' This offers an alternative and helps decide when to use this tool versus a sibling.

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/chemrich/MCPymol'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server