get_horoscopeReturns daily, weekly, and monthly horoscopes for all signs or a specific sign.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sign | No | Zodiac sign (omit for all) | |
| period | No | Which forecast period (default: daily) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| period | Yes | ||
| updated | Yes | ||
| horoscopes | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / horoscopes / additionalProperties / typeRemoved value: -"string"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "horoscopes": {
+ "additionalProperties": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "period": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "updated": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "updated",
+ "period",
+ "horoscopes"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description does not contradict these and adds no extra behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. It adequately conveys that the tool is a read 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?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary details. It is concise and front-loaded with the key action and resource.
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?
The tool has an output schema and comprehensive input schema, so the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the essential functionality. Missing a brief note that horoscopes are textual forecasts, but this is minor given the tool's simplicity.
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%, with detailed enums and descriptions for both parameters. The description adds minimal new meaning, simply summarizing the period and sign options. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema's thoroughness.
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 ('returns') and resource ('horoscopes'), specifying the available periods (daily, weekly, monthly) and sign selection (all or specific). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which relate to horoscopes.
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. However, sibling tools are not horoscope-related, so the need for differentiation is minimal. Usage is implied by the tool's straightforward purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.