Skip to main content
Glama

Kundlit Vedic Astrology

by com.kundlit

Love compatibility by name numerology

get_love_compatibility
Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns a light-hearted name-compatibility score between two people from Pythagorean numerology: each name reduces to a digit 1-9 (any master number 11/22/33 is reported alongside), the pair maps to a 0-100 score, and a short fixed reading and band come with it. Use this ONLY for entertainment, and say so when presenting it. It uses names, not birth data, so it can say nothing real about a relationship: for genuine marriage matching call get_kundli_match, which scores both birth charts on the Ashtakoot system. Read-only deterministic arithmetic over a fixed number table -- no ephemeris, no birth details, no writes, no auth, at least 30 requests/min/IP per server instance.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
name_aYesFirst person's name in Latin letters, e.g. "Rahul". Must contain at least one A-Z letter; digits and punctuation are ignored when scoring.
name_bYesSecond person's name in Latin letters, e.g. "Priya". Same rules as name_a.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds further details: 'Read-only deterministic arithmetic over a fixed number table -- no ephemeris, no birth details, no writes, no auth, at least 30 requests/min/IP per server instance.' This goes beyond annotations and clarifies the tool's behavior comprehensively. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with purpose. It packs useful information but could be slightly more concise. Still, every sentence adds value.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains what the return includes (score, reading, band) and mentions master numbers. It fully captures the tool's functionality and constraints given its simplicity.

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 coverage is 100% with good descriptions. The description adds context about ignoring digits and punctuation, but this is already implied in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles most semantics.

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 clearly states the tool returns a name-compatibility score from Pythagorean numerology, detailing the digit reduction, scoring, and output components. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'get_kundli_match' by specifying that 'get_love_compatibility' is for entertainment and not based on birth data.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states 'Use this ONLY for entertainment, and say so when presenting it.' and contrasts with 'get_kundli_match' for real marriage matching, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Kundlit Vedic Astrology 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

A4.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct astrological calculation or domain: dosha checks, birth charts, compatibility, muhurta, panchang, numerology, transits, and Jaimini layer. Even similar tools (e.g., get_panchang vs get_muhurta_timings) are explicitly differentiated in their descriptions, and cross-references tell the agent which to use for which question.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: 'get_' for data retrieval and 'check_' for yes/no dosha assessments. No camelCase or mixed conventions. The naming is predictable and readable.

Tool Count4/5

At 17 tools, the set is slightly above the ideal 15-tool ceiling, but it is well-scoped for the breadth of Vedic astrology: each tool earns its place covering a distinct sub-domain. The count feels justified rather than bloated.

Completeness5/5

The surface covers the full lifecycle of a birth chart (details, full kundli, dasha), doshas (manglik, kaal sarp, sade sati), compatibility (kundli match), event planning (muhurta, panchang, year events, eclipses), numerology (personal, mobile, name), and advanced layers (upapada, transits). No obvious gaps or dead ends.

Resources