Skip to main content
Glama

Western Astrology MCP Server by RoxyAPI

by com.roxyapi
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Ecliptic Crossings - Node passages for a whole year

post_astrology_ecliptic_crossings
Read-only

Get every moment a body crosses the plane of the ecliptic during a given year, for the 11 Western bodies that leave it: the Moon and Mercury through Pluto, plus Chiron and Black Moon Lilith. A crossing from south to north is an ascending node passage, north to south a descending one. These are the instants a body sits exactly on the ecliptic rather than merely near it, which is what makes an eclipse possible when a lunar crossing coincides with a New or Full Moon, and what practitioners use for node-based timing. Returns the exact date and time in your timezone with the tropical longitude and sign. The Sun and the lunar nodes are excluded because they lie on the plane by definition and so have no nodes of their own. Essential for eclipse-season work, node timing, and astronomical calendars. Ecliptic crossing API, planetary node passage, ascending and descending nodes. 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
yearYesYear to scan for node passages (1900-2100).
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.
timezoneNoTimezone: an IANA name (e.g. "America/New_York", "Europe/London", or `cities[0].timezone` from /location/search) or decimal hours from UTC (e.g. -5 for EST, 5.5 for IST). An IANA name is resolved once, at the start of the window, and that offset applies to every time in the response. Crossing dates and times are reported in this zone. Defaults to 0 (UTC).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
yearYes
eventsYes
timezoneYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / timezone / description
      Previous value: -"Timezone offset from UTC in hours. Crossing dates and times are reported in this zone. Defaults to 0 (UTC)."New value: +"Timezone: an IANA name (e.g. \"America/New_York\", \"Europe/London\", or `cities[0].timezone` from /location/search) or decimal hours from UTC (e.g. -5 for EST, 5.5 for IST). An IANA name is resolved once, at the start of the window, and that offset applies to every time in the response. Crossing dates and times are reported in this zone. Defaults to 0 (UTC)."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "events": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "date": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "datetime": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "direction": {
+            "enum": [
+              "ascending",
+              "descending"
+            ],
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "longitude": {
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "planet": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "planetLocalized": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "sign": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "signLocalized": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "time": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "planet",
+          "direction",
+          "date",
+          "time",
+          "datetime",
+          "longitude",
+          "sign"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "timezone": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "year": {
+      "type": "number"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "year",
+    "timezone",
+    "events"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / lang / description
      Previous value: -"Response language (ISO 639-1). Supported: en, tr, de, es, hi, pt, fr, ru. Defaults to en. Languages without translations yet return English."New value: +"Response 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."
    • changedInput schema / properties / lang / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "en",
-  "tr",
-  "de",
-  "es",
-  "hi",
-  "pt",
-  "fr",
-  "ru"
-]New value: +[
+  "en",
+  "tr",
+  "de",
+  "es",
+  "hi",
+  "pt",
+  "fr",
+  "ru",
+  "zh-Hans",
+  "zh-Hant"
+]
  4. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly and non-destructive, and the description adds rich behavioral context: it defines ascending vs. descending node passages, clarifies that these are exact-on-plane moments rather than near-plane, specifies the return shape (date/time, tropical longitude, sign), and notes the NASA JPL Horizons verification. This goes well beyond what annotations convey and gives the agent a solid mental model of 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and keeps essential semantics early. Most sentences earn their place, but the final line 'Ecliptic crossing API, planetary node passage, ascending and descending nodes.' is keyword-style repetition that adds no agent value. Minor fluff aside, the structure is clear and logically ordered.

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?

The description covers included bodies, excluded bodies, node definitions, return contents, timezone handling, use cases, and data verification. Combined with a fully documented input schema and an output schema, an agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly. There is no material missing context for a read-only calculation tool.

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 baseline is 3 and the description need not compensate. The description does reinforce semantic meaning for 'year' ('during a given year') and 'timezone' ('in your timezone'), but these are already fully documented in the schema. It adds no new parameter-level insight beyond what the schema provides, which is appropriate given the high coverage.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Get every moment a body crosses the plane of the ecliptic during a given year,' and then enumerates exactly which bodies are included (Moon through Pluto, Chiron, Black Moon Lilith). It explicitly states what the tool is not (Sun and lunar nodes are excluded), which differentiates it clearly from any sibling astrology tool. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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—'eclipse-season work, node timing, and astronomical calendars'—and explains the significance of crossings in eclipse prediction, which informs when an agent should choose this tool. It does not explicitly point to a sibling alternative or state when not to use it, but the tool is unique enough among siblings that this is a minor omission. Clear context is provided without formal exclusions.

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

All Western Astrology MCP Server by RoxyAPI toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources