Asterwise

Numerology Compatibility

asterwise_get_numerology_compatibility

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compares two people on their Pythagorean Life Path numbers, worked out from their birth dates. Returns a score, tier label, narrative, strengths, challenges, and advice.

WORKFLOW: BEFORE: RECOMMENDED — asterwise_get_numerology_profile per person — sanity-check Life Paths before comparing. AFTER: None.

INPUT CONTRACT: Four strings (two names, two dates) are passed through without local guards. The API requires both names, but they do not change the score: only the birth dates do.

DO NOT CONFUSE WITH: asterwise_get_compatibility — sidereal koota scoring, not numerology integers. asterwise_get_numerology_profile — single-person profile, not dyad scoring.

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

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": {
      "person1_name": "<person1_name>",
      "person1_date": "<person1_date>",
      "person2_name": "<person2_name>",
      "person2_date": "<person2_date>"
    },
    "name": "asterwise_get_numerology_compatibility"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`person1_date`	Yes	First person's date of birth, YYYY-MM-DD.
`person1_name`	Yes	First person's full name. The API requires it, but it does not change the score: compatibility compares the two Life Path numbers from the birth dates.
`person2_date`	Yes	Second person's date of birth, YYYY-MM-DD.
`person2_name`	Yes	Second person's full name. The API requires it, but it does not change the score: compatibility compares the two Life Path numbers from the birth dates.
`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.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 10, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / person1_name / description

Previous value: -"First person's full name."New value: +"First person's full name. The API requires it, but it does not change the score: compatibility compares the two Life Path numbers from the birth dates."

changedInput schema / properties / person2_name / description

Previous value: -"Second person's full name."New value: +"Second person's full name. The API requires it, but it does not change the score: compatibility compares the two Life Path numbers from the birth dates."

Changed5 schema fields changedSep 5, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / person1_date / description
```
Added value: +"First person's date of birth, YYYY-MM-DD."
```
- addedInput schema / properties / person1_name / description
```
Added value: +"First person's full name."
```
- addedInput schema / properties / person2_date / description
```
Added value: +"Second person's date of birth, YYYY-MM-DD."
```
- addedInput schema / properties / person2_name / description
```
Added value: +"Second person's full name."
```
- 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: -[
-  "person1_name",
-  "person1_date",
-  "person2_name",
-  "person2_date",
-  "response_format"
-]New value: +[
+  "person1_name",
+  "person1_date",
+  "person2_name",
+  "person2_date"
+]

First observedApr 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds genuinely new behavior: four strings pass through with no local guards, both names are required by the API but do not affect the score, and only birth dates drive the result. It also names the return fields. It stops short of describing rate limits or the error contract itself (deferred to an external doc link).

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then scannable WORKFLOW / INPUT CONTRACT / DO NOT CONFUSE blocks. Slightly redundant, since the 'names do not change the score' point appears in both the description and the schema, but every block still earns its place.

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, return values need no explanation, yet the description still summarizes them. Workflow prerequisites, sibling disambiguation, input caveats, and a link to the full output/error contract make this complete for a 5-parameter read-only tool.

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% and each parameter already documents format (YYYY-MM-DD) and the name-is-ignored caveat, so the description adds little beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden; the INPUT CONTRACT paragraph largely restates the same facts.

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?

States a specific verb (compares), the exact technique (Pythagorean Life Path from birth dates), and enumerates the return payload (score, tier, narrative, strengths, challenges, advice). It is immediately distinguishable from the many other compatibility siblings.

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?

Explicit workflow blocks give BEFORE (recommended get_numerology_profile per person to sanity-check Life Paths) and AFTER (none), plus a DO NOT CONFUSE WITH section naming two alternatives and the axis on which each differs (sidereal koota vs numerology integers; single-person vs dyad).

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?