Skip to main content
Glama
taehojo
by taehojo

predict_tf_binding_impact

Analyze how genetic variants affect transcription factor binding sites using ChIP-seq predictions to identify regulatory changes.

Instructions

Focus on transcription factor binding effects only.

Analyzes TF binding site changes using ChIP-seq predictions.

Perfect for: TF binding site variants, regulatory element analysis.

Example: "Analyze TF binding impact of chr1:12345678G>A"

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chromosomeYes
positionYes
refYes
altYes
tissue_typeNo

Implementation Reference

  • Tool schema definition including input validation schema for predict_tf_binding_impact
    export const PREDICT_TF_BINDING_IMPACT_TOOL: Tool = {
      name: 'predict_tf_binding_impact',
      description: `Focus on transcription factor binding effects only.
    
    Analyzes TF binding site changes using ChIP-seq predictions.
    
    Perfect for: TF binding site variants, regulatory element analysis.
    
    Example: "Analyze TF binding impact of chr1:12345678G>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)
    Registration of predict_tf_binding_impact tool in the ALL_TOOLS array used by MCP server
    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 dispatch handler for predict_tf_binding_impact tool call
    case 'predict_tf_binding_impact': {
      const params = validateInput(variantPredictionSchema, args) as VariantPredictionParams;
      const result = await getClient().predictTfBindingImpact(params);
      return {
        content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(result, null, 2) }],
      };
    }
  • AlphaGenomeClient method that handles predict_tf_binding_impact by calling Python bridge
    async predictTfBindingImpact(params: VariantPredictionParams): Promise<any> {
      try {
        return await this.callPythonBridge('predict_tf_binding_impact', params);
      } catch (error) {
        if (error instanceof ApiError) throw error;
        throw new ApiError(`TF binding impact prediction failed: ${error}`, 500);
      }
  • Core Python handler implementing the predict_tf_binding_impact logic by specializing AlphaGenome predictions for TF binding
    def predict_tf_binding_impact(client, params: Dict[str, Any]) -> Dict[str, Any]:
        """Focus on TF binding effects only."""
        params['output_types'] = [dna_client.OutputType.CHIP_TF]
        result = predict_variant_effect(client, params)
        return {
            'variant': result['variant'],
            'tf_binding': result['predictions'].get('tf_binding', []),
            'impact_level': result['interpretation']['impact_level']
        }
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the analysis method (ChIP-seq predictions), it doesn't describe what the tool actually returns, whether it's a score, prediction, or annotation. It also doesn't mention computational requirements, limitations, or what 'analyzes' entails operationally. The description is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero 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 four sentences that each serve a purpose: establishing scope, describing method, providing use cases, and giving an example. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. The only minor inefficiency is the repetition of 'TF binding' in multiple sentences.

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?

For a 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how predictions are made, limitations of ChIP-seq predictions, or the purpose of the tissue_type parameter. Given the complexity and lack of structured documentation, the description should provide more operational 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 for all 5 parameters. The description mentions 'TF binding site variants' and provides an example with chromosome:position:ref>alt format, which hints at chromosome, position, ref, and alt parameters. However, it completely omits the tissue_type parameter and doesn't explain the meaning or format requirements for any parameters beyond the basic example.

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 analyzes transcription factor binding site changes using ChIP-seq predictions, which is a specific verb (analyzes) and resource (TF binding site changes). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on TF binding effects only, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like predict_chromatin_impact or predict_expression_impact.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: 'Perfect for: TF binding site variants, regulatory element analysis.' It gives a concrete example and specifies the focus area. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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