Skip to main content
Glama

Ayurveda MCP Server by RoxyAPI

by com.roxyapi

List the three doshas - Dosha catalogue API

get_ayurveda_doshas
Read-only

Return vata, pitta and kapha with the qualities, seats and five sub-doshas each carries, and the three states the seasonal cycle moves them through. Every quality is one of the twenty gunas and every state is described as a position and a quality rather than as a complaint, which is what lets the catalogue join to the tastes and qualities endpoints without a lookup table in between. Each entry carries the verse it comes from, and the second primary text is recorded where it reads the list differently.

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
limitNoMaximum items to return per page. Range: 1-3, default 3.
offsetNoNumber of items to skip for pagination. Default 0.
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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations cover read-only safety, so the description adds value by disclosing modeling choices: states are expressed as position/quality rather than complaints, qualities are constrained to the twenty gunas, and text variants are recorded from a second primary source. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond 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 first sentence front-loads the core result set and the second adds important data-modeling context. It is slightly dense but each clause contributes something non-obvious about the returned catalogue.

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 naming the doshas, their attributes, sub-doshas, states, and verse provenance, as well as language/pagination parameters via the schema. It does not describe the response envelope or list-vs-detail relationship with the ID sibling, but there is enough for a straightforward read-only catalogue call.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for lang, limit, offset, and compact, so the schema fully documents parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which matches the baseline for full 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 concrete verb-resource pair: 'Return vata, pitta and kapha' plus the attributes each carries. It distinguishes the collective catalogue from the ID-scoped sibling and from the tastes/qualities endpoints by positioning this as the canonical three-dosha listing.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is given about when to call this endpoint instead of get_ayurveda_doshas_id or get_ayurveda_daily, and no exclusions or alternatives are named. The text only implies a data-modeling role ('join to the tastes and qualities endpoints'), not a selection rule.

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

All Ayurveda MCP Server by RoxyAPI toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools are sharply separated by resource: dosha list/detail, qualities, tastes, constitution, routine, and season. The overlap is get_ayurveda_daily, which deliberately combines dinacharya and ritucharya, but its description clearly frames it as a one-call convenience and points to the post routes for customised calls.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow the same verb_ayurveda_resource pattern, with get_ for read-only catalogue lookups and post_ for calculations. This makes the API predictable; the only minor oddity is doshas_id, but it does not break the pattern.

Tool Count5/5

Eight tools cover the core catalogue (doshas, qualities, tastes), daily/seasonal readings, and the two calculation endpoints. This is well-scoped and each tool earns its place without redundancy.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the main Ayurveda knowledge objects and the key date/location calculations, so agents can assemble useful readings. The main gap is that there is no separate endpoint for managing or listing location/convention options, but the daily composite helps tie the routes together.

Resources