Skip to main content
Glama
taehojo
by taehojo

assess_pathogenicity

Evaluate genetic variant pathogenicity with clinical classification, scoring, and evidence breakdown for diagnostic sequencing and variant interpretation.

Instructions

Comprehensive pathogenicity assessment of a genetic variant.

Evaluates variant across all regulatory modalities and provides clinical classification.

Returns:

  • Pathogenicity score (0-1 scale)

  • Clinical classification (pathogenic/likely_pathogenic/uncertain/likely_benign/benign)

  • Evidence breakdown (expression, splicing, TF binding impacts)

Perfect for: clinical variant interpretation, pathogenicity prediction, diagnostic sequencing.

Example: "Assess pathogenicity of chr19:44908684T>C"

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chromosomeYesChromosome (chr1-chr22, chrX, chrY)
positionYesGenomic position (1-based)
refYesReference allele
altYesAlternate allele
tissue_typeNoOptional: disease-relevant tissue (default: brain)

Implementation Reference

  • MCP server request handler for the 'assess_pathogenicity' tool. Validates input using variantPredictionSchema, calls the AlphaGenomeClient.assessPathogenicity method, and formats the result as MCP content.
    case 'assess_pathogenicity': {
      const params = validateInput(variantPredictionSchema, args) as VariantPredictionParams;
      const result = await getClient().assessPathogenicity(params);
      return {
        content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(result, null, 2) }],
      };
    }
  • Tool schema definition including name, description, and input schema for validating parameters like chromosome, position, ref, alt, and optional tissue_type.
    export const ASSESS_PATHOGENICITY_TOOL: Tool = {
      name: 'assess_pathogenicity',
      description: `Comprehensive pathogenicity assessment of a genetic variant.
    
    Evaluates variant across all regulatory modalities and provides clinical classification.
    
    Returns:
    - Pathogenicity score (0-1 scale)
    - Clinical classification (pathogenic/likely_pathogenic/uncertain/likely_benign/benign)
    - Evidence breakdown (expression, splicing, TF binding impacts)
    
    Perfect for: clinical variant interpretation, pathogenicity prediction, diagnostic sequencing.
    
    Example: "Assess pathogenicity of chr19:44908684T>C"`,
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          chromosome: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'Chromosome (chr1-chr22, chrX, chrY)',
            pattern: '^chr([1-9]|1[0-9]|2[0-2]|X|Y)$',
          },
          position: {
            type: 'number',
            description: 'Genomic position (1-based)',
            minimum: 1,
          },
          ref: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'Reference allele',
            pattern: '^[ATGCatgc]+$',
          },
          alt: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'Alternate allele',
            pattern: '^[ATGCatgc]+$',
          },
          tissue_type: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'Optional: disease-relevant tissue (default: brain)',
          },
        },
        required: ['chromosome', 'position', 'ref', 'alt'],
      },
    };
  • src/tools.ts:709-730 (registration)
    Registration of the assess_pathogenicity tool by including ASSESS_PATHOGENICITY_TOOL in the ALL_TOOLS array, which is returned by the 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,
    ];
  • AlphaGenomeClient method that handles the assess_pathogenicity action by calling the Python bridge script with formatted parameters.
    async assessPathogenicity(params: VariantPredictionParams): Promise<any> {
      try {
        return await this.callPythonBridge('assess_pathogenicity', {
          chromosome: params.chromosome,
          position: params.position,
          ref: params.ref,
          alt: params.alt,
          tissue_type: params.tissue_type,
        });
      } catch (error) {
        if (error instanceof ApiError) throw error;
        throw new ApiError(`Pathogenicity assessment failed: ${error}`, 500);
      }
    }
  • Core implementation of pathogenicity assessment in the Python bridge. Computes a weighted pathogenicity score from expression, splicing, and TF binding impacts, and assigns ACMG-style clinical classification.
    def assess_pathogenicity(client, params: Dict[str, Any]) -> Dict[str, Any]:
        """
        Comprehensive pathogenicity assessment of a variant.
        Uses all modalities to provide clinical interpretation.
        """
        result = predict_variant_effect(client, params)
    
        # Calculate pathogenicity score based on multiple factors
        predictions = result['predictions']
    
        # Score components
        expression_impact = abs(predictions.get('rna_seq', {}).get('fold_change', 0))
        splice_impact = abs(predictions.get('splice', {}).get('delta', 0))
        tf_impact = max([tf.get('change', 0) for tf in predictions.get('tf_binding', [])], default=0)
    
        # Combined pathogenicity score (0-1 scale)
        pathogenicity_score = min(1.0, (expression_impact * 0.4 + splice_impact * 0.4 + tf_impact * 0.2))
    
        # Clinical classification
        if pathogenicity_score > 0.7:
            classification = 'pathogenic'
        elif pathogenicity_score > 0.4:
            classification = 'likely_pathogenic'
        elif pathogenicity_score > 0.2:
            classification = 'uncertain_significance'
        elif pathogenicity_score > 0.1:
            classification = 'likely_benign'
        else:
            classification = 'benign'
    
        return {
            'variant': result['variant'],
            'pathogenicity_score': float(pathogenicity_score),
            'classification': classification,
            'evidence': {
                'expression_impact': float(expression_impact),
                'splice_impact': float(splice_impact),
                'tf_binding_impact': float(tf_impact)
            },
            'predictions': predictions
        }
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return format (pathogenicity score, clinical classification, evidence breakdown) which is helpful, but doesn't mention computational requirements, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether this is a read-only operation versus a write operation that might store results.

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 clear sections (purpose, returns, usage contexts, example). It's appropriately sized at 6 sentences, though the 'Perfect for' section could be slightly more concise. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides good purpose and usage context but lacks details about computational behavior, error conditions, and the specific format of the 'evidence breakdown' return value. The example helps but doesn't fully compensate for the missing behavioral transparency.

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 schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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 tool's purpose as 'Comprehensive pathogenicity assessment of a genetic variant' with specific actions ('evaluates variant across all regulatory modalities', 'provides clinical classification'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'predict_splice_impact' or 'predict_expression_impact' by offering a comprehensive assessment rather than focused predictions.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides explicit usage contexts with 'Perfect for: clinical variant interpretation, pathogenicity prediction, diagnostic sequencing' and includes an example. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives like 'batch_score_variants' for multiple variants or 'explain_variant_impact' for detailed mechanistic explanations.

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