Asterwise

Numerology Profile

asterwise_get_numerology_profile

Read-onlyIdempotent

Builds a Pythagorean numerology profile from a legal name and birth date and returns core numbers, cycles, lucky digits, and summary copy.

WORKFLOW: BEFORE: None — this tool is standalone. AFTER: asterwise_get_personal_year — fills Personal Year when needed.

INPUT CONTRACT: name and date strings are forwarded without extra local validation; malformed payloads fail upstream.

DO NOT CONFUSE WITH: asterwise_get_chaldean_numerology — Chaldean letter values and compound structure, not Pythagorean cores. asterwise_get_lucky_numbers — lightweight lucky list without the full profile payload.

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

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_numerology_profile"
  }
}

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

A4.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful contract detail — inputs are forwarded without local validation and malformed payloads fail upstream — but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or failure modes beyond that. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is adequate-but-thin.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by labeled sections (WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, DO NOT CONFUSE WITH) that an agent can scan. Every sentence carries routing or contract information; nothing is padding.

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?

For a standalone read-only tool with a full output schema, the description supplies everything needed: inputs, output shape at a high level, workflow placement, sibling disambiguation, and a docs pointer for the full contract. Return-value details are correctly deferred to the output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema, and an output schema exists. The description only echoes name/date at a high level and never mentions response_format or its enum, adding little beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Builds'), a precise resource ('Pythagorean numerology profile'), its inputs ('legal name and birth date'), and its outputs ('core numbers, cycles, lucky digits, summary copy'). The 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH' section names the two nearest siblings and how they differ, so an agent can disambiguate 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?

Gives explicit workflow context ('BEFORE: None — standalone', 'AFTER: asterwise_get_personal_year') plus two named alternatives with the condition that selects them (Chaldean letter values vs. lightweight lucky list). Nothing about when to pick this over a sibling is left to inference.

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?