Skip to main content
Glama

Fengshui Calculator

solar_terms

All 24 solar terms of a year with exact Beijing instants. Model: VSOP87D apparent solar longitude + nutation + aberration + ΔT; root tolerance 1e-7 day (~8.6 ms); verified against an independent JPL DE441-based reconstruction. ΔT and midnight-margin uncertainty flags included.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "solar_terms"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
yearNo1901–2199

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and mostly succeeds: it discloses the computational model (VSOP87D + nutation + aberration + ΔT), the root-finding tolerance (~8.6 ms), independent verification, and that uncertainty flags are returned. It stops short of stating read-only/deterministic behavior and the response shape, which is why it isn't a 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the opening clause, followed by method and trust signals. The numerical precision details (1e-7 day, DE441) are borderline unnecessary for tool selection, but they are compact and do support the 'exact instants' claim.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a no-annotation tool with no output schema, the description should say more about what actually comes back: the list structure, instant format/timezone, and what the uncertainty flags look like. It conveys intent and precision well but leaves the agent guessing at the response shape.

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% and the single 'year' parameter already documents its 1901–2199 range, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema for this parameter, but nothing is missing either.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The first clause names the resource precisely: 'All 24 solar terms of a year with exact Beijing instants', which is far more specific than a restatement of the name. It is clear what the agent gets, but it never distinguishes this from the sibling tools 'calendar' or 'sun_position', which plausibly overlap in scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement of when to use this versus 'calendar' or 'sun_position', no prerequisite, and no note on the optional year (the schema marks it non-required, so what happens by default is unexplained). The agent must infer the selection criteria entirely on its own.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources