oddsky

wise_color

Calculates NEOWISE W1–W2 color for each visit and checks whether it follows W1 brightness to reveal warm dust signatures.

Instructions

NEOWISE W1-W2 colour per visit and whether it tracks W1 brightness (warm dust signature).

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>"
    },
    "name": "wise_color"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`case`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.1Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden and does not meet it. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, how expensive it is, what data it requires, whether it fails on cases without WISE coverage, or what form the result takes. Only the interpretive hint about a warm dust signature is added.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

It is a single short sentence with no filler, which is good. The terseness crosses into ambiguity: 'per visit' and 'tracks' are unexplained, so the brevity costs comprehension rather than gaining it.

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 one-parameter analysis tool with no output schema, the description conveys the core computation but omits the return shape and the input assumptions. It is minimally adequate but leaves an agent uncertain about what it will get back and what data the case must contain.

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% for the single required parameter 'case', and the description says nothing about it. An agent must guess that 'case' is a case identifier matching the sibling set (open_case, case_overview), which is inference rather than documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a concrete derived quantity (NEOWISE W1-W2 colour per visit and its correlation with W1 brightness), which is more informative than a restated title. However, it is a noun phrase with no verb, so it is unclear whether the tool computes, plots, or tabulates the colour. It also does not differentiate itself from plausible siblings such as ir_excess, cross_band, or compare_windows.

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 guidance on when to use this tool, no prerequisites (e.g., the case needing NEOWISE visits), and no mention of alternatives. The parenthetical 'warm dust signature' hints at the interpretation goal but does not tell an agent when to pick this over nearby tools.

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