Skip to main content
Glama

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

by com.jagannathahora

Upagrahas (Sub-planets)

get_upagrahas
Read-onlyIdempotent

Return the upagrahas (shadowy sub-planets / calculated upagrahas) of the chart. Each upagraha maps to its 'sign' and 'longitude'. Includes dhuma, vyatipaata, parivesha, indrachaapa, upaketu, kaala, mrityu, artha_praharaka, yama_ghantaka, gulika and maandi. Data only — no interpretation is added.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateYesBirth date in YYYY-MM-DD format, e.g. 1985-06-15
timeYesBirth time in 24h HH:MM:SS format, e.g. 10:30:00
placeNoOptional birth-place name (cosmetic only).
genderNoOptional. 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.
latitudeYesBirth-place latitude in decimal degrees, e.g. 13.0827
timezoneYesTimezone offset from UTC in hours, e.g. 5.5 for IST
longitudeYesBirth-place longitude in decimal degrees, e.g. 80.2707

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context by enumerating all 11 upagrahas returned and specifying each maps to sign and longitude, plus the data-only guarantee.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, with a compact list of included upagrahas. No filler; the 'Data only' caveat earns its place.

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 read-only, idempotent tool with fully documented parameters, the description covers the output substance: a list of upagrahas and their sign/longitude mapping. With no output schema, slightly more detail on the exact return shape would be ideal, but the fixed enumeration mitigates the gap.

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?

The input schema describes all 7 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline applies. The description adds no information about how date/time/place affect the calculation or the meaning of optional parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Return the upagrahas ... of the chart'), names the exact items returned, and explicitly states raw data vs no interpretation. This is enough to distinguish from siblings such as get_sahams or get_yogas, which cover different astrological elements.

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 'Data only — no interpretation is added' line conveys a clear use-case for raw data consumers, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative among the many sibling tools. Usage must be inferred from the tool name and content list.

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) toolsInspect
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