Asterwise

Name Correction

asterwise_get_name_correction

Read-onlyIdempotent

Scores the current spelling of a personal name against the birth-date Life Path and suggests alternate spellings with harmony metrics. Names the best alternative when one scores higher.

WORKFLOW: BEFORE: RECOMMENDED — asterwise_get_numerology_profile — baseline numbers before renaming advice. AFTER: None.

INPUT CONTRACT: name and date strings only; upstream validates.

DO NOT CONFUSE WITH: asterwise_get_business_name_analysis — entity Expression scan, not personal spelling alternatives. asterwise_get_chaldean_numerology — Chaldean compounds, not harmony-scored spelling list.

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

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "date": "<date>"
    },
    "name": "asterwise_get_name_correction"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`date`	Yes	Date in YYYY-MM-DD format.
`name`	Yes	Person's full name as commonly written; its letters are converted to numerology values.
`response_format`	No	Output format: 'markdown' (default) for a readable report, or 'json' for the raw structured payload.	markdown

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 10, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / name / description

Previous value: -"Person's full name as commonly written; letters are converted to numerology values."New value: +"Person's full name as commonly written; its letters are converted to numerology values."

Changed1 schema field changedSep 7, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / date / description

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

Changed3 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 / name / description

Added value: +"Person's full name as commonly written; letters are converted to numerology values."

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: -[
-  "name",
-  "date",
-  "response_format"
-]New value: +[
+  "name",
+  "date"
+]

First observedApr 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context: it specifies the input contract ('name and date strings only; upstream validates') and describes the scoring/selection behavior ('names the best alternative when one scores higher'), though it leaves error details to an external link.

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 the core purpose, then uses labeled sections for workflow, input contract, and disambiguation. Every section contributes routing value, and there is no redundant restatement of the title or schema.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description provides the remaining needed context: purpose, workflow placement, input expectations, sibling disambiguation, and a link to the full output/error contract. Nothing essential for correct invocation appears missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description slightly enriches the date parameter by calling it the 'birth-date' used for Life Path, and clarifies that the name is a personal name whose spelling is being evaluated, adding meaning beyond the schema's generic string descriptions.

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 action (scores current personal-name spelling, suggests alternate spellings with harmony metrics) and names the discriminating sibling tools that could be confused with it. An agent can identify the tool's scope without opening the schema.

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?

It gives explicit workflow guidance (BEFORE: RECOMMENDED get_numerology_profile, AFTER: none) and names two sibling alternatives with the conditions that make this tool different. This covers when to use it and when not to confuse it with adjacent tools.

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

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?