Skip to main content
Glama

Asterwise

by com.asterwise.mcp

Western Compatibility

asterwise_get_western_compatibility
Read-onlyIdempotent

Overall compatibility score (0–100) between two natal charts. Scores element affinity, synastry aspects between personal planets (Sun, Moon, Venus, Mars), and Sun/Moon/rising sign comparisons.

WORKFLOW: BEFORE: asterwise_get_western_natal per person optional. AFTER: asterwise_get_western_synastry — drill into raw aspects if score needs detail.

INPUT CONTRACT: person1, person2 — WesternBirthData each.

DO NOT CONFUSE WITH: asterwise_get_western_synastry — raw aspects, no score. asterwise_get_western_zodiac_compatibility — sign-only, no birth data.

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

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
person1YesBirth data for Western astrology tools (tropical zodiac).
person2YesBirth data for Western astrology tools (tropical zodiac).
response_formatNoOutput format: 'markdown' (default) for a readable report, or 'json' for the raw structured payload.markdown

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / response_format / description
      Added value: +"Output format: 'markdown' (default) for a readable report, or 'json' for the raw structured payload."
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / response_format / default
      Added value: +"markdown"
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "person1",
-  "person2",
-  "response_format"
-]New value: +[
+  "person1",
+  "person2"
+]
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description is not burdened with basic safety disclosure. It adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the 0–100 score range, the scoring components, and the distinction that this tool returns a score rather than raw aspects.

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 clear sections: core purpose first, then WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, and DO NOT CONFUSE WITH. Every section adds routing or selection value, and the documentation link is a compact substitute for repeating the full output contract.

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 tool with a rich input schema, output schema, and annotation set, the description covers the essential operational context: what the score means, what inputs are required, what workflow to follow, which siblings to avoid, and where to find the full output/error contract. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, with detailed descriptions for every parameter including the nested person1/person2 objects, so the description does not need to re-document parameters. The description adds only a brief INPUT CONTRACT note that person1 and person2 are WesternBirthData, which is already present in the schema, so it stays at the baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: computes an 'Overall compatibility score (0–100) between two natal charts,' and lists exactly what it scores (element affinity, synastry aspects, sign comparisons). It also explicitly differentiates itself from siblings in the DO NOT CONFUSE WITH section, so an agent can select it without opening the 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 provides explicit before/after guidance, telling agents that a natal chart per person is optional beforehand and that asterwise_get_western_synastry should be used afterward for raw aspect detail. The DO NOT CONFUSE WITH block names two alternatives and the exact conditions that disqualify them, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use signals.

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

All Asterwise toolsInspect
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