Asterwise

Lo Shu Grid

asterwise_get_lo_shu_grid

Read-onlyIdempotent

Derives a Lo Shu three-by-three frequency grid from birth-date digits and annotates planes, missing or repeated digits, and per-digit traits.

WORKFLOW: BEFORE: None — standalone. AFTER: None.

INPUT CONTRACT: date string only; validated upstream.

DO NOT CONFUSE WITH: asterwise_get_numerology_profile — letter-based Western numbers, not digit-frequency Lo Shu. asterwise_get_name_correction — spelling harmonics, not birth-date grids.

Full output and error contract: https://docs.asterwise.com/mcp/tools/get-lo-shu-grid/

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`date`	Yes	Date in YYYY-MM-DD format. Defaults to today when omitted.
`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.

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 5, 2026

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: -[
-  "date",
-  "response_format"
-]New value: +[
+  "date"
+]
```
First observedApr 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral value by specifying what the tool computes and annotates, and by referencing the full output and error contract, which goes beyond the structured 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 well-structured with clearly labeled WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, and DO NOT CONFUSE WITH sections. Every sentence carries operational value, and the primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 only two parameters, the description is complete for selecting and invoking the tool. It covers purpose, workflow, input contract, sibling differentiation, and provides a link to the full output and error contract.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents date and response_format. The description adds minimal extra parameter meaning beyond saying the input contract is a date string and that it is validated upstream, which is useful but not a major supplement to the schema.

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 description states a specific verb and resource: it derives a Lo Shu three-by-three frequency grid from birth-date digits and annotates planes, missing or repeated digits, and per-digit traits. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from related sibling tools, so an agent can differentiate it from asterwise_get_numerology_profile and asterwise_get_name_correction.

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 description provides explicit when-not/alternative guidance in the DO NOT CONFUSE WITH section, naming two siblings and explaining why they are not substitutes. It also adds workflow context stating the tool is standalone with no before/after dependencies, making selection conditions clear.

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?