oddsky

periodogram

Compute Lomb-Scargle spectra using the survey spectral window and flag peaks matching Earth, lunar, TESS, yearly, or alias rhythms so you can distinguish real signals from artifacts.

Instructions

Lomb-Scargle periodogram with the survey's spectral window, flagging peaks that match Earth/spacecraft rhythms (day, lunar month, TESS orbit, year) or window aliases.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "case": "<case>",
      "series": "<series>"
    },
    "name": "periodogram"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`end`	No
`case`	Yes
`start`	No
`series`	Yes
`max_period`	No
`min_period`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.1Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the method, use of the survey spectral window, and peak flagging for known rhythms/aliases, but does not state side effects, permissions, return format, or whether results are persisted.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no boilerplate or repetition. Every clause adds substantive method or flagging detail.

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 six-parameter analysis tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits required input meanings, return/flag structure, and call prerequisites. It provides only high-level method context.

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

Parameters1/5

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

All six parameters have 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain case, series, start/end, min_period, or max_period. It adds no parameter meaning beyond the bare schema titles and defaults.

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 states it computes a Lomb-Scargle periodogram using the survey's spectral window and flags peaks matching known Earth/spacecraft rhythms or window aliases. This is a specific method plus distinctive output scope, though it omits an explicit action verb such as 'compute'.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and it does not mention alternatives such as fold, eclipse_period, or compare_windows. The method and flagging context only loosely imply it is for alias-aware period searches.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.