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

Planetary States (retrograde, combust, dignity)

get_planetary_states

Read-onlyIdempotent

Return the dignity and motion state of the planets, grouped by condition. Each field is a list of planet names: 'retrograde_planets' (planets in retrograde motion), 'combusted_planets' (too close to the Sun / combust), 'exalted_planets' (in their sign of exaltation), 'debilitated_planets' (in their sign of debilitation/fall), 'own_sign_planets' (in a sign they rule), 'friend_sign_planets' (in a friendly planet's sign) and 'enemy_sign_planets' (in an enemy planet's sign). A planet absent from all lists is in a neutral sign. Data only — no interpretation is included.

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

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: each output list's meaning, the neutral-sign behavior for planets absent from all lists, and the explicit 'Data only — no interpretation is included' boundary. This fully discloses what the tool will and will not do.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then systematically defines all seven output fields in a compact list. Every sentence adds necessary semantic detail—none is wasted. The length is proportionate to the complexity of the output structure.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries full responsibility for explaining return values. It does so exhaustively by naming every field, defining each condition, and covering the neutral-sign fallback. Inputs are fully documented in the schema, and annotations cover safety, so nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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%, with all 7 parameters clearly documented including examples and format specifics. The description adds no parameter-level information, but per the baseline rule, when schema coverage is high the description need not repeat it. A score of 3 is appropriate.

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 dignity and motion state of the planets, grouped by condition.' It then enumerates every output field with precise definitions, making the tool's scope unmistakable. The closing 'Data only — no interpretation is included' clearly separates it from interpretive sibling tools like get_yogas or get_doshas.

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 context by stating it returns raw data only, which suggests it is for callers wanting uninterpreted planetary states rather than interpretive tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or specify when to choose this tool over siblings such as get_planet_ingress or get_gochara. The usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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?