Skip to main content
Glama

Western Astrology MCP Server by RoxyAPI

Monthly Aspects - Tropical aspect calendar for an entire month

post_astrology_aspects_monthly
Read-only

Get every planetary aspect that perfects during a given month, across the 13 non-lunar Western bodies: the Sun and Mercury through Pluto, both lunar nodes, Chiron and Black Moon Lilith. Detects nine aspects, five major (conjunction, sextile, square, trine, opposition) and four minor (semi-sextile, semi-square, sesquiquadrate, quincunx), each with its own traditional orb, and returns the exact date and time of closest approach in your timezone along with the nature of the aspect. Calculated on tropical longitudes. The Moon is excluded because it forms hundreds of aspects a month and belongs in a daily view rather than a monthly one. Omit year and month to get the month in progress, so a published calendar stays current without a redeploy. Essential for monthly forecast copy, transit calendars, electional timing, and newsletter automation. Monthly aspect calendar API, exact aspect times, planetary aspect ephemeris, transit timing. Verified against NASA JPL Horizons.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
langNoResponse language (BCP 47). Supported: en, tr, de, es, hi, pt, fr, ru, zh-Hans, zh-Hant. Defaults to en. Coverage varies by domain, and a field with no translation in the requested language returns English.en
yearNoYear for the aspect calendar (1900-2100). Defaults to the current year (UTC).
monthNoMonth number (1-12). Defaults to the current month (UTC).
compactNoSet true for the same data in a compact shape: arrays of same-shaped objects arrive columnar as {"__cols":[names],"__rows":[[values]]}. Lossless, typically 40 to 52 percent fewer tokens.
nodeTypeNoLunar node convention. "mean" is the smoothed average node, which always moves retrograde; "true" is the osculating node, which tracks the real perturbed node, oscillates up to about 1.5 degrees either side of the mean on a 173-day cycle, and can briefly turn direct. Neither is more correct and they almost always fall in the same sign. Applies to the North and South Node. True is the osculating node and the default, because it is what most Western chart software reports; mean is the smoothed node preferred by several evolutionary schools, so pass "mean" to match one. Nothing else in the chart changes, and the two agree on the sign except when the node sits within about 1.8 degrees of a cusp. Defaults to "true".true
timezoneNoTimezone offset from UTC in hours. Event dates and times are reported in this zone, which is what makes a published calendar read correctly for its audience. Defaults to 0 (UTC).

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate this is a read-only, non-destructive operation, so the bar is lower. The description then adds meaningful behavioral detail: exact times for closest approach in the selected timezone, tropical longitudes, traditional orbs, exclusion of the Moon, and the fact that omitting year/month serves the current month so pasted calendars stay fresh. The catalog appears to be verified against JPL Horizons. Nothing about the behavior is hidden or contradicts the 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 main behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a logical order: scope, aspects, method, coordinate system, exclusions, default behavior, use cases. It is dense but not bloated. The trailing line 'Monthly aspect calendar API, exact aspect times, planetary aspect ephemeris, transit timing' reads like keyword stuffing and does not earn its place; that keeps it from a 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by stating that the response includes exact date and time, the timezone, and the nature of each aspect. It also covers defaults, limits, exclusions, bodies, and coordinate system. It does not provide an example output shape or total response structure, which would make it fully complete, but for a compute-only, read-only monthly calendar API the description leaves an agent well-equipped.

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 fully explains lang, year, month, compact, nodeType, and timezone. The description primarily reinforces two of those (current month defaults and local timezone) without adding new parameter-level insight. It does not compensate beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 states a clear action and resource: 'Get every planetary aspect that perfects during a given month', and then enumerates the covered bodies, aspect types, and calculation basis. It is far more specific than the tool name alone and implicitly distinguishes itself from single-date or broader astrology endpoints. An agent can form an accurate expectation without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description names concrete use cases: monthly forecast copy, transit calendars, electional timing, and newsletter automation. It also explains the Moon's exclusions by saying it 'belongs in a daily view rather than a monthly one', which is an implicit when-not-to-use signal. It does not explicitly point to alternative sibling tools, so it stops short of a full routing guideline.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools are scoped to a clearly distinct domain—moon phases, houses, returns, fixed stars, astrocartography—but several pairs overlap, notably synastry vs. compatibility_score and transits vs. transit_aspects. The descriptions are long and do help an agent choose, but the boundaries are not always obvious at the name level.

Naming Consistency4/5

Every tool follows the same snake_case get_astrology_/post_astrology_ prefix pattern, making the group predictable and readable. However, collection endpoints like get_astrology_planet_meanings_id and get_astrology_signs_id awkwardly combine plural collection and singular id naming, and names like calendar_year_month depart from the cleaner resource+suffix pattern.

Tool Count2/5

With 38 tools, this is well over the 25+ threshold and feels heavy for an agent to traverse. While Western astrology is a broad domain, several near-duplicate endpoints, especially synastry/compatibility and transits/transit_aspects, could be consolidated into fewer, more scoped tools.

Completeness5/5

The toolset is comprehensive, covering natal charts, relationships, transits, returns, progressions, aspects, houses, relocation, and reference data. It includes enough specialized endpoints for both casual horoscope use and in-depth astrological analysis, with no obvious dead ends for the stated domain.

Resources