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

Vaiśeṣikāṃśa Bala

get_vaiseshikamsa_bala

Read-onlyIdempotent

Return the Vaiseshikamsa Bala — the count of auspicious vargas (good divisional-chart dignities) each planet attains. The result is a list of four entries, one per classical weighting scheme (Shadvarga=6 charts, Sapthavarga=7, Dashavarga=10, Shodashavarga=16). Each entry maps the planets (Sun, Moon, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus, Saturn, Raagu, Kethu) to a string of the form 'AmsaName\n(vargas)\ncount' — e.g. 'Vyanjanaamsa\n(D1/D3/D12)\n3' meaning the amsa dignity name, the divisional charts contributing, and the integer count of good vargas. 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).
`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

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to re-establish safety. It adds useful behavioral context by guaranteeing a bounded result set (exactly four weighting schemes covering the listed nine planets) and explicitly stating that no interpretation is added, which is consistent with openWorldHint=false.

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 carry the purpose, output shape, planet set, example format, and data-only caveat without repetition. The most important information is front-loaded and every clause 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?

Given there is no output schema, the description compensates well by specifying the list length, each entry's structure, the exact string format, and an example. It could be even more complete by flagging which sibling tools cover interpretation or other balas, but an agent has enough to call the tool correctly from this description plus the input schema.

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 the schema already documents every parameter. The tool description contributes no additional meaning to date, time, location, or optional gender beyond the output context; a baseline 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 ('Return') and a precise resource ('Vaiseshikamsa Bala'), then explains it as the count of auspicious vargas per planet. Naming the four weighting schemes and the exact planet set makes it easy to distinguish from the many sibling bala tools without opening schemas.

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 clarifies the scope—pure data, no interpretation—and thereby implies it is not for interpretive answers. However, it never names an alternative tool or states a condition for choosing this bala over get_shad_bala, get_vimsopaka_bala, or get_bhava_bala, so selection among siblings is left to inference.

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?