Angel Numbers MCP Server by RoxyAPI
Server Details
Angel number meanings and repeating sequences like 111, 222, 333 for AI agents.
- 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 3.7/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: browsing all numbers, looking up any number, retrieving a specific number, and getting the daily number. No overlap in functionality.
Most tools start with 'get_angel_numbers', but the daily tool uses 'post_angel_numbers_daily', breaking the pattern. The naming is still readable but inconsistent.
4 tools is a tight, focused set for the angel numbers domain. Each tool adds value without redundancy.
Covers all major operations: browse full database, lookup arbitrary numbers, retrieve specific meanings, and get a daily number. No obvious gaps.
Available Tools
4 toolsget_angel_numbersList All Angel NumbersAInspect
Retrieve the complete database of angel numbers with summary information. Returns 75+ angel numbers covering root digits (0-9), master numbers (11, 22, 33), double digits (44-99), triple repeating (111-999), quad repeating (1111-9999), the mirror families (X0X like 101-909, X1X, four-digit mirrors like 1212-2121), palindromes (1221, 1331), compound sequences (911, 1122), and sequential numbers (123, 1234). Supports optional type filtering. Perfect for building angel number explorer apps, reference guides, and spiritual databases.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Response language (ISO 639-1). Supported: en, tr, de, es, hi, pt, fr, ru. Defaults to en. Languages without translations yet return English. | en |
| type | No | Filter results by angel number pattern type. "repeating" returns numbers like 111, 444, 7777. "sequential" returns patterns like 1234. "mirror" returns palindrome or alternating patterns like 1212, 717. "master" returns 11, 22, 33. "root" returns single digits 0-9. "compound" returns mixed sequences with no pure pattern like 911, 1122. | |
| limit | No | Maximum items to return per page. Range: 1-50, default 20. | |
| offset | No | Number of items to skip for pagination. Default 0. | |
| compact | No | Set true to receive the exact same data in a token-optimized shape that is cheaper for you to read: whitespace is stripped and every array of same-shaped objects is encoded columnar as {"__cols":[field names],"__rows":[[values]]}, so each field name is sent once instead of once per row. Fully lossless (no field or value is dropped or changed) and typically 40 to 52 percent fewer tokens on large results. Prefer true whenever token or inference cost matters. Default false returns standard indented JSON. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It lists what is returned (75+ numbers covering many types) and mentions optional filtering, but does not clarify pagination behavior, idempotency, or side effects. For a read-only list tool, this is minimally adequate but lacks depth.
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 paragraph that is front-loaded with the main action. It lists many categories, which adds length but remains efficient. Slight room for tighter phrasing, but no wasted sentences.
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?
With no output schema and five parameters, the description should explain the structure of returned data. It only says 'with summary information' without specifying fields or format. Pagination behavior is also not mentioned, leaving gaps for an agent to understand the full response.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds some context (e.g., type filtering) but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.
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 retrieves the complete database of angel numbers with summary information, listing many specific categories. It distinguishes from siblings by being a broad listing tool, whereas siblings likely target specific lookups or daily numbers.
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 mentions it's 'perfect for building angel number explorer apps, reference guides, and spiritual databases,' implying suitable use cases, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_angel_numbers_lookupAnalyze Any Number SequenceAInspect
Smart angel number analysis that works for ANY number sequence, not just known angel numbers. Automatically classifies the pattern type (repeating, sequential, mirror, master, root, compound), calculates the numerology digit root, checks the database for a known meaning, and provides the foundational digit root interpretation (with full spiritual, love, career, money, and twin flame guidance) as a fallback. An optional context parameter adds a note tailored to where the number was seen. Perfect for synchronicity tracking apps where users enter arbitrary number sequences they encounter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Response language (ISO 639-1). Supported: en, tr, de, es, hi, pt, fr, ru. Defaults to en. Languages without translations yet return English. | en |
| number | Yes | Number sequence to analyze (1-8 digits). Can be any number the user has encountered: clock times (1111), addresses (717), receipts (888), license plates (4444), or any repeating pattern. | |
| compact | No | Set true to receive the exact same data in a token-optimized shape that is cheaper for you to read: whitespace is stripped and every array of same-shaped objects is encoded columnar as {"__cols":[field names],"__rows":[[values]]}, so each field name is sent once instead of once per row. Fully lossless (no field or value is dropped or changed) and typically 40 to 52 percent fewer tokens on large results. Prefer true whenever token or inference cost matters. Default false returns standard indented JSON. | |
| context | No | Where the number was seen. When supplied, the response adds a contextNote tailoring the reading to the sighting: clock (a glanced time), receipt (a purchase), license-plate (in transit), phone (a call or notification), address (a home or place), price (a total or amount). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description fully explains behavior: auto-classifies pattern type, calculates digit root, checks database, and provides fallback interpretation. It also describes the context effect. No mention of side effects or rate limits, but the tool is read-only and behavior is well described.
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?
Description is approximately 6 sentences, front-loading core functionality. Every sentence adds value: defines purpose, lists algorithmic steps, explains optional parameters, and provides use case. No redundancy or fluff.
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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description thoroughly explains input use, processing steps, and output components (pattern type, digit root, known meaning, fallback). It covers required and optional parameter effects, making the tool self-contained and easy to use.
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 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds significant context beyond schema: explains that 'number' can be clock times, addresses, receipts, etc., and describes how 'context' tailors the reading. This enhances understanding of parameter usage and real-world applicability.
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 explicitly states the tool analyzes 'ANY number sequence' and details specific actions: classify pattern, calculate digit root, check database for known meaning, provide fallback interpretation. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_angel_numbers (likely for known numbers) and get_angel_numbers_number (specific lookup), making it ideal for arbitrary sequences.
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?
Description specifies the tool is 'Perfect for synchronicity tracking apps where users enter arbitrary number sequences,' providing clear context for use. It does not explicitly exclude scenarios where known angel numbers are already known, but the sibling differentiation implies that. The optional context parameter is explained with concrete examples.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_angel_numbers_numberGet Angel Number MeaningBInspect
Get the complete, authoritative meaning and interpretation for a specific angel number. Returns detailed spiritual, love, career, money, and twin flame interpretations, plus a biblical perspective and a shadow reading, along with keywords, affirmation, and actionable steps. Covers 75+ angel numbers including 111, 222, 333, 444, 555, 666, 777, 888, 999, 1111, 1212, 1234, and more. Authoritative interpretations covering all major angel number patterns.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Response language (ISO 639-1). Supported: en, tr, de, es, hi, pt, fr, ru. Defaults to en. Languages without translations yet return English. | en |
| number | Yes | Angel number sequence to look up (e.g., "111", "444", "1212", "1234"). Must match an entry in the database. | |
| compact | No | Set true to receive the exact same data in a token-optimized shape that is cheaper for you to read: whitespace is stripped and every array of same-shaped objects is encoded columnar as {"__cols":[field names],"__rows":[[values]]}, so each field name is sent once instead of once per row. Fully lossless (no field or value is dropped or changed) and typically 40 to 52 percent fewer tokens on large results. Prefer true whenever token or inference cost matters. Default false returns standard indented JSON. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It describes the output in detail but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, non-destructive, or safe. However, the nature of the tool (looking up meanings) implies no side effects, so the description is 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?
The description is a single paragraph that front-loads the purpose and lists output features. It includes a list of example numbers, which is somewhat verbose but helpful for understanding the scope. Overall, it is well-structured and concise without being overly terse.
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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the output thoroughly with categories and examples. It does not mention error handling or edge cases, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool returns and how to use it.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no information about parameters beyond what the schema already provides. It focuses on the output rather than parameter usage, which is acceptable given the high 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?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves the complete meaning for a specific angel number, listing various interpretation categories. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on a single number, but does not explicitly contrast with get_angel_numbers or get_angel_numbers_lookup, which likely handle multiple numbers or different lookup methods.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (get_angel_numbers, get_angel_numbers_lookup, post_angel_numbers_daily). The description does not mention prerequisites, alternatives, or scenarios where other tools would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
post_angel_numbers_dailyDaily Angel NumberAInspect
Get the angel number of the day with full meaning and interpretation. Returns a deterministic angel number based on the current date (or a provided seed date), ensuring all users see the same number for any given day. Includes complete spiritual, love, career, money, and twin flame interpretations plus a biblical perspective and a shadow reading. Perfect for daily guidance features, push notifications, content generation, and angel number widget integrations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | Date for the reading in YYYY-MM-DD format. Defaults to today (UTC). Useful for viewing past daily readings or pre-generating future ones. | |
| lang | No | Response language (ISO 639-1). Supported: en, tr, de, es, hi, pt, fr, ru. Defaults to en. Languages without translations yet return English. | en |
| seed | No | Optional seed for reproducible readings. Same seed + same date = same angel number every time. Pass any unique identifier (userId, email hash, session token). Omit for anonymous daily readings. | |
| compact | No | Set true to receive the exact same data in a token-optimized shape that is cheaper for you to read: whitespace is stripped and every array of same-shaped objects is encoded columnar as {"__cols":[field names],"__rows":[[values]]}, so each field name is sent once instead of once per row. Fully lossless (no field or value is dropped or changed) and typically 40 to 52 percent fewer tokens on large results. Prefer true whenever token or inference cost matters. Default false returns standard indented JSON. |
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 details the deterministic behavior based on date/seed and the scope of interpretations. However, it lacks disclosure of potential side effects, rate limits, or any constraints. It does not contradict annotations (none exist).
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 paragraph of four sentences, front-loaded with the core function and then detail. It is well-structured and concise, though the list of interpretation types is slightly verbose. Overall, it earns its space.
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 complexity (4 parameters, no required, no output schema), the description adequately covers the tool's behavior and use cases. It explains deterministic generation and seed reproducibility. However, it could be improved by briefly describing the output structure or mentioning error handling.
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 parameter descriptions. The tool description adds minimal extra context beyond reinforcing the deterministic nature related to date and seed. It does not significantly enhance understanding of parameters beyond 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 tool returns the angel number of the day with full meaning and interpretation. It specifies the deterministic nature and lists covered aspects (spiritual, love, etc.). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_angel_numbers or get_angel_numbers_lookup, which would clarify when to use this tool over others.
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 use cases (daily guidance, notifications, content generation, widgets) but does not give explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives, nor when not to use it. The usage context is implied but not formally stated.
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!