Skip to main content
Glama

search_pdb_entity

Search PDBj to find macromolecular structures, chemical components, or biologically interesting molecules. Filter by experimental method, resolution, ligand, and more, with detailed results per hit.

Instructions

Search PDBj for structures, chemical components, or BIRD molecules.

Returns rich, named fields per hit (not just the title) — for pdb, each result carries the experimental method, resolution, bound ligands, and citation; for cc, the formula, SMILES, and InChI.

RETURNS a JSON string {"total": int | null, "results": [ {…fields…} ]}. total is null when PDBj gives no count (typical for structured-filter searches) — that is NOT zero and does NOT mean "no results"; consult results directly. On upstream/HTTP failure returns a JSON object with an error key instead — CHECK FOR error BEFORE reading results.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dbYesThe database to search in. Allowed values are: - "pdb" (Protein Data Bank, macromolecular structures) - "cc" (Chemical Component Dictionary, ligands / small molecules) - "prd" (BIRD, Biologically Interesting Reference Molecule Dictionary, mostly peptides).
nameNo
termNo
limitNoMax results to return, in [0, 500]. Default 20.
queryNoFree-text keywords. May be empty when at least one structured filter is supplied. Accepts aliases: `search`, `term`, `keyword`, `keywords`, `search_term`, `name`. If both `query` and an alias are given with different values, this raises ValueError (pass only one).
ligandNo
methodNo
offsetNoNumber of leading results to skip (server-side pagination). Default 0.
searchNo
smilesNo
sourceNo
formulaNo
keywordNo
res_maxNo
res_minNo
keywordsNo
search_termNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior4/5

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It clearly explains the JSON response structure, the meaning of null total, the possibility of an error key, and the rule for query aliases raising ValueError. This is above average but does not cover potential rate limits or authorization.

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 relatively verbose, with several sentences detailing the return format and error handling. While front-loaded with purpose, it could be more concise by omitting redundant details already present in the output 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?

The description covers the return format and edge cases adequately, and an output schema exists. However, the lack of parameter explanations for 13 parameters, no mention of pagination behavior beyond offset/limit, and no usage guidance make it incomplete for a complex tool with many parameters.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 24%, and the description adds little beyond what is in the schema for the few documented parameters (db, limit, query, offset). The majority of the 17 parameters (e.g., ligand, method, smiles) receive no explanation in either the schema or the description, making it hard for an agent to use them correctly.

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 'Search PDBj for structures, chemical components, or BIRD molecules,' clearly stating the verb and resource. It names the three database types (pdb, cc, prd) and distinguishes the tool from siblings like search_uniprot_entity or search_reactome_entity by its specific focus on PDBj data.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It lacks context for selecting among the many sibling search tools, relying solely on the tool's name and purpose.

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/dbcls/togomcp'

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