Jeeva Jyotish
Server Details
Sourced Vedic astrology (Jyotish) answers: effects, factors and yogas, cited to jeeva-jyotish.com.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored. Lowest: 3.4/5.
Each tool targets a distinct entity or action: get_factor, get_placement, and get_yoga retrieve details for different types; lookup_combination queries specific placements; search_effects performs corpus search; list_life_domains lists domains. No overlap in purpose.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (get_factor, list_life_domains, lookup_combination, search_effects). The verbs vary appropriately by action.
With 6 tools covering listing, searching, looking up, and retrieving detailed records, the count is well-scoped for a specialized Vedic astrology reference server.
Core workflows (search, lookup, detailed retrieval) are covered. Minor gaps include no direct listing of all factors or yogas, but these can be obtained via search or lookup, so agents can work around.
Available Tools
6 toolsget_factorGet a factor recordAInspect
Fetch the full reference record for a factor by its slug, including all effects and a source.url citation. Slugs come from search_effects or lookup_combination results.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | ||
| locale | No | Response language (default en). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description reveals it fetches full record with effects and source.url citation. Though read-only is implied, no explicit statement on side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with main action and return details, second sentence links to siblings. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, but description adequately explains what is returned. Links to sibling tools. Missing details like error handling or locale effect, but acceptable for a simple fetch.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers 50% of parameters (locale described). Description adds context for slug parameter (source of slugs) but does not mention locale. Adds marginal value over schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb 'Fetch', resource 'full reference record for a factor', and identifier 'by its slug'. Distinguishes from siblings by noting slugs come from search_effects or lookup_combination.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly tells that slugs come from search_effects or lookup_combination results, guiding when to use. Does not state exclusions but context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_placementGet a per-lagna placement recordBInspect
Fetch the full reference record for a per-lagna placement (Bhrigu Samhita) by its slug — e.g. 'Sun in the 1st House for Aries Ascendant' — including its component factors, all effects and a source.url citation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | ||
| locale | No | Response language (default en). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It implies a read operation but does not state idempotency, authentication needs, or behavior on invalid slug. Adequate but not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose, includes example, and lists output components. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given two parameters and no output schema, the description covers essential purpose and output shape. Missing details about error handling or slug validation, but sufficient for a simple fetch operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50%; the description adds a concrete slug example but no further parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 due to moderate schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool fetches a 'full reference record for a per-lagna placement' by slug, listing included data. However, it does not contrast with sibling tools like 'get_factor' or 'get_yoga'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites or context for the slug. The example slug format is helpful but does not address usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_yogaGet a yoga recordAInspect
Fetch the full reference record for a named yoga (Configuration) by its slug, including its component factors, all effects and a source.url citation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | ||
| locale | No | Response language (default en). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It effectively communicates that the tool performs a read operation, returning specific data (factors, effects, citation). No side effects or usage constraints are mentioned, but the behavior is straightforward and well-scoped.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence is concise (27 words), front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no extraneous information. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and simple parameters, the description adequately explains what the tool returns and how to call it. It does not discuss error cases or output format, but for a straightforward fetch operation, the information is sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%: 'locale' has a description, 'slug' does not. The description clarifies that 'slug' identifies the yoga, adding meaning beyond the schema. For 'locale', the schema already describes it, so no additional value needed. Overall, description compensates well for the missing schema docs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool fetches a full reference record for a named yoga by slug, including component factors, effects, and citation. It distinguishes from sibling tools (get_factor, list_life_domains, etc.) by specifying the unique resource and key.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when needing a full yoga record by slug, but does not explicitly state when to avoid or provide alternatives. No when-not guidance is given, though sibling tool names provide some context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_life_domainsList life domainsAInspect
List the 14 Jyotish life domains the effects are organised by.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, read-only nature, or any side effects, beyond the implied listing operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, concise sentence that front-loads the key information: listing 14 specific domains. No redundant words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but could be improved by explaining what Jyotish life domains are or how the output is structured.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters (0), so the schema coverage is 100%. According to guidelines, baseline is 4; no additional semantic information is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists the 14 Jyotish life domains, specifying the exact number and the purpose (organizing effects). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_factor or search_effects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites or context for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
lookup_combinationLook up a placementAInspect
Look up what a specific placement means, e.g. Mars in the 7th house. Provide a graha and exactly one of bhava (1-12), rashi or nakshatra. Returns the matching factor(s) and their effects, with citations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bhava | No | ||
| graha | Yes | ||
| rashi | No | ||
| locale | No | Response language (default en). | |
| nakshatra | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the output includes 'matching factor(s) and their effects, with citations' but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as idempotency, side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling (e.g., what happens if multiple optional parameters are provided).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that capture the core functionality, required parameters, output, and an example. No unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters (1 required, 4 enums) and no output schema, the description covers the essential usage and return type. It could be more complete by stating what happens if the input is invalid (e.g., multiple optional params) or by describing the return structure in more detail, but it is adequate for a simple lookup tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is low (20%), but the description adds significant meaning by clarifying the mutual exclusivity constraint: 'exactly one of bhava, rashi or nakshatra.' This goes beyond the schema definition. It also lists the required parameter (graha) implicitly. However, it does not explain the locale parameter beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: looking up what a specific placement means (e.g., Mars in the 7th house). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning the parameters (graha, bhava, rashi, nakshatra) and the type of result (effects with citations).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives explicit usage guidance: 'Provide a graha and exactly one of bhava (1-12), rashi or nakshatra.' It provides an example and implies the context (astrological placement). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_effectsSearch Jyotish effectsAInspect
Search the Jeeva Jyotish corpus of classical Vedic astrology (Jyotish) effects by keyword or question. Returns ranked effects with their life domain, benefic/malefic weighting, and a citation (source.url, attribution) back to jeeva-jyotish.com. Always cite source.url when using a result. Supports 6 languages via locale.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default 10). | |
| query | Yes | Keywords or a natural-language question. | |
| domain | No | Restrict to one life domain. | |
| locale | No | Response language (default en). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return structure (ranked effects with domain, weighting, citation) and the attribution requirement. Since the tool is read-only by nature (search), no destructive or mutating behaviors need to be disclosed. This level of detail is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action and result. Every sentence adds value: purpose + returns, attribution instruction, and locale support. There is no redundant or extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description reasonably covers the essential aspects: what is searched, what is returned, and how to handle results. It mentions ranking and citation fields, giving a clear mental model. Minor gaps include no mention of error handling or pagination, but these are acceptable for a search tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema for the parameters; it restates the query purpose and locale support. No parameter-specific additional context is provided beyond what is already in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Search'), the resource ('the Jeeva Jyotish corpus of classical Vedic astrology effects'), and what it returns ('ranked effects with their life domain, benefic/malefic weighting, and a citation'). This combination makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like get_factor or lookup_combination.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage context: searches by keyword/question, supports 6 languages via locale, and instructs to always cite source.url. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives, which would elevate it to a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!