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

Longevity legacy availability

get_longevity

Read-onlyIdempotent

Return the neutral unavailable section for the retired legacy longevity contract. Use get_longevity_reference for versioned natal reference data and explicit source coverage.

Input 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

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), but the description adds non-obvious behavioral context the schema cannot convey: the underlying contract is retired and the tool returns a placeholder 'unavailable section' rather than real longevity data. It does not say whether the required birth parameters are ignored or validated, leaving one behavioral question open.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the primary purpose front-loaded and the alternative immediately following. Every clause carries information.

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?

For a retired stub with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what comes back and where to get real data instead, and the rich annotations cover the rest. The one gap is that it never explains what happens to the five required natal parameters when the section is unavailable (accepted-and-ignored vs. error), which an agent calling it might reasonably wonder about.

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%, and the schema documents all seven parameters in detail (including the gender enum's effect on Mahabhagya yogas), so the description carries no parameter burden. It adds nothing beyond the schema, which is the baseline 3 case.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('return the neutral unavailable section for the retired legacy longevity contract') and names the sibling it is not. The phrase 'neutral unavailable section' is unusual and somewhat cryptic, but combined with 'retired legacy' it clearly signals this is a deprecation stub rather than a computation tool.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to get_longevity_reference for 'versioned natal reference data and explicit source coverage,' which tells the agent which tool to prefer. It stops short of stating the positive condition for when this tool itself should ever be called (presumably legacy-compatibility callers only), so it is strong but not fully specified.

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?