Skip to main content
Glama
alma-corpus-mcp

alma-corpus-mcp

by adamzacharia

deproject_and_bin

Shift visibilities to a source position, deproject to a face-on geometry, and radially bin them to calculate weighted mean Re/Im and errors versus uv distance.

Instructions

Phase-centre shift, deprojection and radial binning of visibilities.

Shift: V' = V exp(+2 pi i (u dRA + v dDec)) moves a source at (dRA, dDec) to the phase centre. Deprojection: q = sqrt(q_maj^2 + (q_min cos i)^2) with q_maj along the PA (east of north) of the major axis. Each bin gives weighted means of Re and Im (weights = CASA WEIGHT) and errors 1/sqrt(sum w). Returns uv distance in klambda. Limits: assumes axisymmetry; Im is near zero only for a centred symmetric source, so residual Im flags offsets or asymmetry.

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": {
      "vis_path": "<vis_path>"
    },
    "name": "deproject_and_bin"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
n_binsNo
pa_degNo
uv_unitNolambda
freq_ghzNo
vis_pathYes
dra_arcsecNo
ddec_arcsecNo
max_klambdaNo
inclination_degNo
bin_width_klambdaNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the shift and deprojection formulas, the weighting scheme (CASA WEIGHT), the error formula (1/sqrt(sum w)), the returned unit (klambda), and the axisymmetry assumption plus the interpretation of residual Im. It omits file-format/permission expectations and whether any output is written, keeping it from a 5.

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 dense but front-loaded, leading with the operation and then supplying formulas and limits. Every sentence carries technical content, though the formula-heavy style is terse and could be slightly more scannable.

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 10-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and return semantics reasonably well. It still leaves several parameters (freq_ghz, uv_unit, max_klambda, bin_width_klambda) and the exact output structure under-explained, so it is adequate but not complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does explain the physics behind dra_arcsec/ddec_arcsec (shift), pa_deg and inclination_deg (deprojection), and binning. However, freq_ghz, uv_unit, max_klambda, and bin_width_klambda are not given explicit meaning, and the 'returns klambda' note sits in tension with the uv_unit default of 'lambda'.

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 opening sentence names a specific compound operation (phase-centre shift, deprojection, radial binning) on a specific resource (visibilities), which is far more informative than the tool name alone. It does not explicitly contrast with visibility-domain siblings like fit_uv_model or frank_profile, so it stops short of a 5.

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 no mention of the sibling tools that also operate on visibilities. The 'Limits: assumes axisymmetry' caveat hints at applicability but does not tell an agent when to pick this over alternatives.

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