Skip to main content
Glama
taehojo
by taehojo

annotate_regulatory_context

Analyze genetic variants to identify regulatory elements and their functional impact across tissues, supporting variant annotation pipelines and comprehensive genomic reports.

Instructions

Provide comprehensive regulatory annotation for a variant.

Returns detailed regulatory context including all modalities.

Perfect for: variant annotation pipelines, comprehensive reports.

Example: "Annotate regulatory context of chr7:12345678C>A"

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chromosomeYes
positionYes
refYes
altYes
tissue_typeNo

Implementation Reference

  • Tool schema definition including input validation and description.
    export const ANNOTATE_REGULATORY_CONTEXT_TOOL: Tool = {
      name: 'annotate_regulatory_context',
      description: `Provide comprehensive regulatory annotation for a variant.
    
    Returns detailed regulatory context including all modalities.
    
    Perfect for: variant annotation pipelines, comprehensive reports.
    
    Example: "Annotate regulatory context of chr7:12345678C>A"`,
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          chromosome: { type: 'string', pattern: '^chr([1-9]|1[0-9]|2[0-2]|X|Y)$' },
          position: { type: 'number', minimum: 1 },
          ref: { type: 'string', pattern: '^[ATGCatgc]+$' },
          alt: { type: 'string', pattern: '^[ATGCatgc]+$' },
          tissue_type: { type: 'string' },
        },
        required: ['chromosome', 'position', 'ref', 'alt'],
      },
    };
  • src/tools.ts:709-730 (registration)
    Tool registration in the ALL_TOOLS array used by MCP listTools handler.
    export const ALL_TOOLS: Tool[] = [
      PREDICT_VARIANT_TOOL,
      BATCH_SCORE_TOOL,
      ASSESS_PATHOGENICITY_TOOL,
      PREDICT_TISSUE_SPECIFIC_TOOL,
      COMPARE_VARIANTS_TOOL,
      PREDICT_SPLICE_IMPACT_TOOL,
      PREDICT_EXPRESSION_IMPACT_TOOL,
      ANALYZE_GWAS_LOCUS_TOOL,
      COMPARE_ALLELES_TOOL,
      BATCH_TISSUE_COMPARISON_TOOL,
      PREDICT_TF_BINDING_IMPACT_TOOL,
      PREDICT_CHROMATIN_IMPACT_TOOL,
      COMPARE_PROTECTIVE_RISK_TOOL,
      BATCH_PATHOGENICITY_FILTER_TOOL,
      COMPARE_VARIANTS_SAME_GENE_TOOL,
      PREDICT_ALLELE_SPECIFIC_EFFECTS_TOOL,
      ANNOTATE_REGULATORY_CONTEXT_TOOL,
      BATCH_MODALITY_SCREEN_TOOL,
      GENERATE_VARIANT_REPORT_TOOL,
      EXPLAIN_VARIANT_IMPACT_TOOL,
    ];
  • MCP server request handler for the tool call.
    case 'annotate_regulatory_context': {
      const params = validateInput(variantPredictionSchema, args) as VariantPredictionParams;
      const result = await getClient().annotateRegulatoryContext(params);
      return {
        content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(result, null, 2) }],
      };
    }
  • Core tool implementation that performs regulatory context annotation using AlphaGenome predictions.
    def annotate_regulatory_context(client, params: Dict[str, Any]) -> Dict[str, Any]:
        """Add regulatory annotations to variant."""
        result = predict_variant_effect(client, params)
    
        # Determine regulatory context from predictions
        predictions = result['predictions']
        context = []
    
        if predictions.get('rna_seq', {}).get('fold_change', 0) != 0:
            context.append('expression_QTL')
        if predictions.get('splice', {}).get('delta', 0) > 0.1:
            context.append('splice_site')
        if predictions.get('tf_binding'):
            context.append('TF_binding_site')
    
        return {
            'variant': result['variant'],
            'regulatory_context': context,
            'predictions': predictions,
            'impact_level': result['interpretation']['impact_level']
        }
  • Client wrapper method that invokes the Python bridge for the tool action.
    async annotateRegulatoryContext(params: VariantPredictionParams): Promise<any> {
      try {
        return await this.callPythonBridge('annotate_regulatory_context', params);
      } catch (error) {
        if (error instanceof ApiError) throw error;
        throw new ApiError(`Regulatory context annotation failed: ${error}`, 500);
      }
    }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'comprehensive' and 'detailed regulatory context,' but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, rate limits, or what 'all modalities' entails. The example helps but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized with three sentences and an example, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second details the return, the third gives usage context, and the example illustrates input. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the complexity (regulatory annotation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter meanings, and output format, making it inadequate for an agent to fully understand how to invoke and interpret results without additional context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It doesn't explain any of the 5 parameters (chromosome, position, ref, alt, tissue_type) beyond the example, which implies usage but doesn't clarify semantics like what 'tissue_type' does or the format expected. This leaves significant gaps in parameter understanding.

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: 'Provide comprehensive regulatory annotation for a variant' and 'Returns detailed regulatory context including all modalities.' It specifies the verb ('annotate') and resource ('regulatory context'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'predict_chromatin_impact' or 'predict_tissue_specific' which might overlap in regulatory analysis.

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 provides some usage context with 'Perfect for: variant annotation pipelines, comprehensive reports,' which implies when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among the many sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer the best choice.

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/taehojo/alphagenome-mcp'

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