alma-corpus-mcp

line_luminosity

Calculate line luminosity from integrated flux and rest frequency, applying redshift, Planck18 distance, and lensing magnification corrections for local or distant sources.

Instructions

Line luminosity in the Solomon et al. (1997) / Solomon and Vanden Bout (2005) forms.

L'_line = 3.25e7 S dv nu_obs^-2 D_L^2 (1+z)^-3 [K km/s pc^2] (S dv in Jy km/s, nu_obs in GHz, D_L in Mpc) L_line = 1.04e-3 S dv nu_obs D_L^2 = 1.04e-3 S dv nu_rest (1+z)^-1 D_L^2 [Lsun] and L_line = 3.18e-11 nu_rest^3 L'. For a local source give distance_mpc (z may stay 0); for z > 0 leave distance_mpc empty and D_L comes from Planck18 (a given distance wins, with a warning if it disagrees). Lensed sources are divided by magnification. Limits: interferometric fluxes can miss extended emission.

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": {
      "integrated_flux_jy_kms": "<integrated_flux_jy_kms>",
      "rest_freq_ghz": "<rest_freq_ghz>"
    },
    "name": "line_luminosity"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`redshift`	No
`distance_mpc`	No
`flux_cal_frac`	No
`magnification`	No
`rest_freq_ghz`	Yes
`integrated_flux_jy_kms`	Yes
`integrated_flux_err_jy_kms`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the assumed cosmology (Planck18), the precedence rule between explicit distance and redshift, the warning behavior, the lensing correction, and the interferometric missing-flux caveat. It stops short of describing the response structure beyond output units (K km/s pc^2 and Lsun).

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 formulas are load-bearing because they fix unit conventions that the bare parameter names do not, and the conditional distance/redshift rule is stated compactly. The prose is dense and slightly run-on in the final sentences, but no sentence is filler.

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 7-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema coverage, the description covers the physics and the dominant input conventions but leaves two parameters undefined and gives only units rather than a return-value description. Adequate for calling the tool, incomplete for calling it confidently with uncertainties or calibration terms.

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 description coverage is 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it only partly does: it pins down units and frames for integrated flux (Jy km/s), rest_freq (GHz), distance (Mpc), redshift, and magnification. flux_cal_frac and integrated_flux_err_jy_kms are never mentioned, leaving their semantics entirely undocumented.

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 names the exact physical quantity (line luminosity) and the two literature conventions it implements, and gives the defining equations, so an agent knows precisely what is computed. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as co_gas_mass or dust_mass_from_flux, so the differentiation is left to the quantity name rather than stated.

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?

It gives concrete conditional guidance: use distance_mpc for local sources, leave it empty for z > 0 so D_L comes from Planck18, and note that an explicit distance wins with a warning on disagreement. Lensed sources are flagged as needing division by magnification. What is missing is guidance on when to pick this tool over the sibling mass/luminosity converters.

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