Skip to main content
Glama

Western Astrology MCP Server by RoxyAPI

Monthly Parallels - Declination contacts for an entire month

post_astrology_parallels_monthly
Read-only

Get every parallel and contraparallel of declination 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. A parallel is two bodies at the same declination and reads much like a conjunction; a contraparallel is equal and opposite declinations and reads much like an opposition. Neither depends on zodiacal distance, so they surface connections an aspect table cannot show, which is why traditional and modern practitioners read them alongside aspects. Declinations are geocentric, matching what an ephemeris publishes. Returns the exact date and time of closest approach in your timezone with both declinations. The Moon is excluded because its declination swings the full range every month and would bury the slow pairs. Omit year and month to get the month in progress, so a published calendar stays current without a redeploy. Essential for declination work, out-of-bounds tracking, monthly forecast copy, and electional timing. Monthly parallel calendar API, declination aspects, contraparallel ephemeris. Verified against NASA JPL Horizons.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
orbNoHow far from exact still counts, in degrees. The traditional orb for a declination contact is tighter than for a zodiacal aspect because declination changes slowly. Defaults to 1.5.
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 declination 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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, it discloses meaningful behavior: geocentric declinations, exclusion of the Moon, the use of month-in-progress defaults when year and month are omitted, timezone-dependent reporting, and the verified source. This is substantial additional context.

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 core function and scope are front-loaded, and most details earn their place. The description loses a little polish near the end with tag-like phrases such as 'Monthly parallel calendar API, declination aspects, contraparallel ephemeris' and the verification claim, which are not necessary for tool selection.

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?

With no output schema present, the description still explains what will be returned: exact date and time of closest approach, both declinations, in the requested timezone. It also clarifies the full body set and why the Moon is excluded, giving an agent enough context to invoke it correctly and interpret results.

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 input schema already documents all seven optional parameters thoroughly. The prose adds only contextual behaviors, such as timezone-aware output and month defaults, rather than materially deepening any individual parameter meaning. The baseline 3 is therefore 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get every parallel and contraparallel of declination that perfects during a given month', then enumerates the exact 13 bodies it covers. It also distinguishes itself from aspect tools by explaining that these contacts surface connections an aspect table cannot show.

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?

It gives clear decision contexts: use this for declination contacts, out-of-bounds tracking, monthly forecast copy, electional timing, and reading these contacts alongside zodiacal aspects. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or state a 'when-not-to-use' condition, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it.

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