Jagannatha Hora — Vedic Astrology (Jyotish, Kundli, Horoscope, Panchang)

Arudha Padas

get_arudha_padas

Read-onlyIdempotent

Return the arudha padas (the perceived/reflected sign of each house) for the divisional charts. Each key is '-' (e.g. 'D-1-Arudha Lagna (AL)', 'D-1-Dhanarudha (A2)', 'D-9-Upapada Lagna (UL)') and the value is the sign that pada falls in. The 12 padas per chart are Arudha Lagna (AL), Dhanarudha (A2), Bhatrarudha (A3), Matri Pada (A4), Mantra Pada (A5), Roga Pada (A6), Dara Pada (A7), Mrityu Pada (A8), Bhagya Pada (A9), Karma Pada (A10), Labha Pada (A11) and Upapada Lagna (UL). By default only the D-1 (Rasi) chart's 12 padas are returned. To get a different chart's 12 padas, set the optional 'varga' argument to EXACTLY one of these tokens (use this exact text, with the hyphen): D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4, D-5, D-6, D-7, D-8, D-9, D-10, D-11, D-12, D-16, D-20, D-24, D-27, D-30, D-40, D-45, D-60, D-81, D-108, D-144. Only one chart is returned per call. Data only — no interpretation is added.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`date`	Yes	Birth date in YYYY-MM-DD format, e.g. 1985-06-15
`time`	Yes	Birth time in 24h HH:MM:SS format, e.g. 10:30:00
`place`	No	Optional birth-place name (cosmetic only).
`varga`	No	Optional. Send EXACTLY one enum token (e.g. 'D-1', 'D-9', 'D-10') to return only that chart's arudha padas. Omit to get the D-1 (Rasi) chart's arudha padas.
`gender`	No	Optional. A few classical yogas are defined by gender -- Mahabhagya's rule is gender x day/night x odd/even signs. Supply it when known; when omitted those yogas are left out of the result rather than computed against an assumed gender.
`latitude`	Yes	Birth-place latitude in decimal degrees, e.g. 13.0827
`timezone`	Yes	Timezone offset from UTC in hours, e.g. 5.5 for IST
`longitude`	Yes	Birth-place longitude in decimal degrees, e.g. 80.2707

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those annotations: the exact key naming scheme, the default D-1 behavior, the single-chart-per-call limitation, and the explicit 'data only — no interpretation' disclaimer.

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?

The description is longer than average but every sentence carries relevant information, especially the 12-pada list and varga token list that support the lack of an output schema. It is organized well, though the varga token list is repeated in the input schema, which is a small redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description fully compensates by specifying the key-value return shape, all possible pada names, the default chart, and the allowed varga tokens. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly and to interpret the returned object.

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 schema already documents every parameter. The description still adds meaning for the 'varga' parameter by explaining the default behavior, insisting on exact token text, and clarifying that only one chart is returned per call. It also explains the output key semantics, which helps the agent map parameters to results.

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: 'Return the arudha padas ... for the divisional charts.' It enumerates all 12 padas and defines the output key format, which clearly separates this house-based arudha tool from sibling tools like get_graha_arudhas, get_chandra_arudhas, and get_surya_arudhas.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives explicit usage context: D-1 is the default, the 'varga' argument chooses another chart, the exact hyphenated token list is supplied, and only one chart is returned per call. It does not explicitly say 'use get_graha_arudhas instead for planetary arudhas,' but the scope is clear enough from the content.

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

All Jagannatha Hora — Vedic Astrology (Jyotish, Kundli, Horoscope, Panchang) tools Inspect

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

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Many tools form near-identical families—bala strengths (get_shad_bala, get_bhava_bala, get_other_bala, get_vaiseshikamsa_bala, get_vimsopaka_bala), arudhas (get_arudha_padas, get_graha_arudhas, get_chandra_arudhas, get_surya_arudhas), and transit snapshots (get_gochara, get_gochara_range, get_saturn_transit, get_muhurta). The detailed descriptions usually clarify, but an agent without deep Jyotish knowledge could easily select the wrong one, especially for vaiseshikamsa vs vimsopaka bala.

Naming Consistency4/5

The vast majority of tools use a clean get_<topic> snake_case pattern, such as get_dasha, get_muhurta, and get_yogas. The two outliers—generate_horoscope and list_divisional_charts—are still readable verb-noun names, so the inconsistency is minor.

Tool Count2/5

32 tools is above the 25+ threshold for too many. Many tools are variations on the same chart computations and could be consolidated into parameterized tools, such as a single bala strength tool with a bala_type argument. The high count will make tool selection harder for agents despite each tool covering a legitimate niche.

Completeness5/5

The surface is remarkably complete for Vedic astrology: chart generation, divisional charts, nakshatras, all major strength systems, dasha timelines, transits, muhurta, yogas, doshas, marriage matching, and specialized points are all present. There are no obvious dead ends for the core workflow of generating and analyzing a horoscope.

Resources

Need Help?