Asterwise

Business Name Analysis

asterwise_get_business_name_analysis

Read-onlyIdempotent

Reduces a business name to Expression and root digits against a founder birth date and returns thematic suitability lists plus a harmony score.

WORKFLOW: BEFORE: None — standalone. AFTER: asterwise_get_name_correction — if the entity is a person, not a brand.

INPUT CONTRACT: Special characters and digits are acceptable; reduction strips non-letters per upstream rules. No local validation on name or date.

DO NOT CONFUSE WITH: asterwise_get_name_correction — personal spelling alternatives, not corporate Expression scoring. asterwise_check_mobile_number — numeric line analysis, not brand letters.

Full output and error contract: https://docs.asterwise.com/mcp/tools/get-business-name-analysis/

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`date`	Yes	Date in YYYY-MM-DD format. Defaults to today when omitted.
`business_name`	Yes	Business or brand name to analyse.
`response_format`	No	Output format: 'markdown' (default) for a readable report, or 'json' for the raw structured payload.	markdown

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed3 schema fields changedSep 5, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / business_name / description
```
Added value: +"Business or brand name to analyse."
```

addedInput schema / properties / date / description

Added value: +"Date in YYYY-MM-DD format. Defaults to today when omitted."

addedInput schema / properties / response_format / description

Added value: +"Output format: 'markdown' (default) for a readable report, or 'json' for the raw structured payload."

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 4, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / response_format / default
```
Added value: +"markdown"
```

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "business_name",
-  "date",
-  "response_format"
-]New value: +[
+  "business_name",
+  "date"
+]

First observedApr 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds non-obvious input behavior: special characters and digits are acceptable, non-letters are stripped per upstream rules, and no local validation is performed on name or date. It also provides a full output and error contract link, giving the agent a path for any remaining behavioral questions. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 description is front-loaded with a one-sentence functional summary, then organized into labeled WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, and DO NOT CONFUSE WITH sections. Each section contributes distinct information, and the length is justified by the large sibling set and the need to communicate input tolerances.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the output schema, annotations, and the linked full contract, the description covers prerequisites, follow-up routing, input validation behavior, and alternatives. Nothing needed to correctly invoke the tool is missing, aside from the schema-level date required/default ambiguity noted under parameter semantics.

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

Parameters4/5

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

With 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents each parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying that date is the founder birth date and that business_name tolerates special characters/digits while non-letters are stripped. One caveat: the schema lists date as required while its own property description says it defaults to today when omitted, an internal ambiguity the description does not resolve.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The opening sentence names a specific operation (reduces), the resource (business name), the basis (founder birth date), and the outputs (thematic suitability lists, harmony score). The DO NOT CONFUSE WITH section explicitly separates it from asterwise_get_name_correction and asterwise_check_mobile_number, making it distinguishable from siblings without opening schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The WORKFLOW section states there is no prerequisite and names the AFTER tool (asterwise_get_name_correction) with the exact condition: if the entity is a person, not a brand. The DO NOT CONFUSE WITH section gives two explicit alternatives and their distinguishing use cases, so an agent knows when not to select this tool.

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

All Asterwise tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Many tools are well-differentiated by explicit 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH' notes, but the sheer number of near-neighbor pairs (e.g., crystal vs gemstone recommendations, natal chart variants, dasha systems, compatibility systems, tarot draw variants) creates real selection risk. The descriptions mitigate overlap, but an agent browsing 103 tools will struggle to pick the right one.

Naming Consistency5/5

Every tool follows the asterwise_get_* or asterwise_draw_* prefix convention with a clear noun phrase (e.g., asterwise_get_natal_chart, asterwise_draw_tarot_cards). The two verbs 'get' and 'draw' are semantically appropriate, and there are no camelCase or mixed-style names.

Tool Count1/5

103 tools is far beyond a manageable MCP surface. While the domain is broad (Vedic astrology, Western astrology, numerology, tarot, crystals, dream symbols), the server bundles multiple distinct domains into one namespace, making it nearly impossible for an agent to discover the right tool efficiently.

Completeness4/5

The surface is impressively comprehensive across astrology, numerology, tarot, and remedies, with deep coverage of dasha systems, compatibility frameworks, and chart types. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tarot interpretation endpoint, no batch operations, no update/delete since it's read-only data), but for a reference/prediction API the coverage is strong.

Resources

Need Help?