Skip to main content
Glama
taehojo
by taehojo

predict_chromatin_impact

Analyze how genetic variants affect chromatin accessibility using DNase and ATAC-seq data to predict chromatin state changes in regulatory regions.

Instructions

Focus on chromatin accessibility effects only.

Analyzes DNase and ATAC-seq predictions for chromatin state changes.

Perfect for: enhancer variants, regulatory region analysis.

Example: "Analyze chromatin impact of chr2:23456789C>T"

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chromosomeYes
positionYes
refYes
altYes
tissue_typeNo

Implementation Reference

  • Core handler function for the predict_chromatin_impact tool. Specializes variant effect prediction for chromatin accessibility modalities (ATAC-seq and DNase-seq) by setting specific output_types and extracting relevant results.
    def predict_chromatin_impact(client, params: Dict[str, Any]) -> Dict[str, Any]:
        """Focus on chromatin accessibility changes."""
        params['output_types'] = [dna_client.OutputType.ATAC, dna_client.OutputType.DNASE]
        result = predict_variant_effect(client, params)
        return {
            'variant': result['variant'],
            'predictions': result['predictions'],
            'impact_level': result['interpretation']['impact_level']
        }
  • Tool definition including name, description, and input schema (JSON Schema) for parameter validation in the MCP tool 'predict_chromatin_impact'.
    export const PREDICT_CHROMATIN_IMPACT_TOOL: Tool = {
      name: 'predict_chromatin_impact',
      description: `Focus on chromatin accessibility effects only.
    
    Analyzes DNase and ATAC-seq predictions for chromatin state changes.
    
    Perfect for: enhancer variants, regulatory region analysis.
    
    Example: "Analyze chromatin impact of chr2:23456789C>T"`,
      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'],
      },
    };
  • Registration of the tool action in the Python bridge's main dispatcher, routing 'predict_chromatin_impact' calls to the handler function.
    elif action == 'predict_chromatin_impact':
        result = predict_chromatin_impact(client, params)
  • src/index.ts:213-219 (registration)
    MCP server request handler case that dispatches 'predict_chromatin_impact' tool calls to the AlphaGenome client.
    case 'predict_chromatin_impact': {
      const params = validateInput(variantPredictionSchema, args) as VariantPredictionParams;
      const result = await getClient().predictChromatinImpact(params);
      return {
        content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(result, null, 2) }],
      };
    }
  • TypeScript client method that bridges the MCP tool call to the Python bridge script by spawning the process and passing 'predict_chromatin_impact' action.
    async predictChromatinImpact(params: VariantPredictionParams): Promise<any> {
      try {
        return await this.callPythonBridge('predict_chromatin_impact', params);
      } catch (error) {
        if (error instanceof ApiError) throw error;
        throw new ApiError(`Chromatin impact prediction 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 full burden. It mentions the analysis type ('DNase and ATAC-seq predictions') and focus ('chromatin accessibility effects'), but lacks critical behavioral details: what permissions or data access are needed, whether it's computationally intensive, what the output format looks like (no output schema), or any rate limits. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 concise with four short sentences/points. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Focus on chromatin accessibility effects only. Analyzes DNase and ATAC-seq predictions...'), and each sentence adds value (scope, purpose, usage context, example). There's no redundant or wasted text.

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 (5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools), the description is incomplete. It covers the 'what' and some 'when', but misses critical details: parameter meanings, behavioral traits (e.g., computational requirements), output format, and differentiation from siblings. For a tool in a crowded namespace with undocumented parameters, this leaves too many gaps for effective agent use.

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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The description doesn't explain any of the 5 parameters (chromosome, position, ref, alt, tissue_type) beyond what's implied in the example. It doesn't clarify what 'tissue_type' expects, the format for ref/alt, or the significance of these inputs. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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: 'Analyzes DNase and ATAC-seq predictions for chromatin state changes.' It specifies the verb ('analyzes') and resource ('chromatin state changes'), and the first sentence 'Focus on chromatin accessibility effects only' provides additional scope. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'predict_expression_impact' or 'predict_tf_binding_impact' that might also involve chromatin-related 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: enhancer variants, regulatory region analysis' and an example, which implies when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives among the many sibling tools (e.g., when to choose this over 'predict_expression_impact' or 'annotate_regulatory_context'). The guidance is helpful but incomplete for tool selection.

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