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

Doshas

get_doshas

Read-onlyIdempotent

Return the standard dosha (planetary affliction) checks for the chart. The result maps each dosha name to the engine's text on whether the combination is present in this horoscope and the reasoning behind it. Doshas covered: Kala Sarpa Dosha, Manglik Dosha, Pitru Dosha, Guru Chandala Dosha, Ganda Moola Dosha, Kalathra Dosha, Ghata Dosha and Shrapit Dosha. The text may contain light HTML markup (e.g. ). It is the engine's classical reference text for astrologer interpretation; some entries quote traditional outcome statements (for example about marriage) -- present those as classical sayings, not as predictions about this person.

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).
`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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedAug 26, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / gender

Added value: +{
+  "description": "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.",
+  "enum": [
+    "male",
+    "female"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedAug 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the return is a map of dosha name to engine text plus reasoning, the text may contain light HTML, and entries quote classical outcome statements that should be presented as sayings rather than personal predictions. That last point is unusual and valuable guidance not derivable from structured fields.

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 purpose and covered-dosha list are front-loaded, then the return-shape and presentation caveats follow. Slightly long with the eight-item enumeration, but every sentence carries information and nothing is redundant with the schema.

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

Completeness4/5

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

There is no output schema, so the description correctly fills that gap by describing the result as a dosha-name-to-text map and warning about embedded HTML. Required birth inputs are fully covered by the schema; the only mild gap is no guidance on pagination or size of the returned text, which is minor.

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%, so all seven parameters (including the gender enum caveat) are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter format or meaning, so 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 and resource ('Return the standard dosha checks for the chart') and enumerates exactly which doshas are covered (Kala Sarpa, Manglik, Pitru, etc.), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_yogas even without naming them. An agent can tell what this returns and what it does not.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage (it explains the result shape and how to present strings) but never states when to call this versus get_yogas or other chart-analysis siblings, nor any prerequisites beyond the birth data. Usage is inferable but not directed.

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

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?