Ayurveda MCP Server by RoxyAPI

Ayurvedic constitution from a birth chart - Dosha profile API

post_ayurveda_constitution

Read-only

Read the Ayurvedic constitution from a sidereal birth chart and return the vata, pitta and kapha shares with a verse behind every factor. Three factors are scored, each one carrying a classical rule that it shows the native humour: the rising sign, the sign the Moon occupies, and the strongest graha by shadbala. The composite that blends them is a RoxyAPI convention rather than a classical one, so its version and its weights ship inside the response, and every response states that this is general wellness and cultural interest only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`date`	Yes	Birth date in YYYY-MM-DD format. It sets the sidereal positions the whole reading is built from, so an approximate date gives an approximate constitution.
`lang`	No	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.	en
`time`	Yes	Birth time in 24-hour HH:MM:SS format. The rising sign turns roughly every two hours and carries the heaviest weight of the three factors, so time is the input a reading is most sensitive to.
`compact`	No	Set 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.
`ayanamsa`	No	Sidereal frame the chart is cast in. "lahiri" is the traditional Vedic standard used by most software and is the default. "raman" sits about 1.45 degrees below it. "kp-newcomb" and "kp-old" are the two Krishnamurti Paddhati frames. "custom" takes your own value in degrees via ayanamsaValue. The frame rotates the whole zodiac, so a graha within 1.45 degrees of a boundary can change rashi when you switch, which moves both sign factors of the reading.	lahiri
`latitude`	Yes	Birth latitude in decimal degrees. It sets the local sidereal time behind the rising sign, and it feeds the strength of each graha through the sunrise at that place.
`timezone`	No	Timezone as an IANA name such as "Asia/Kolkata", or as decimal hours from UTC such as 5.5. An IANA name is resolved to the offset in force on the birth date, so a summer-time birth is placed correctly. Defaults to 5.5.
`longitude`	Yes	Birth longitude in decimal degrees. It sets the local sidereal time behind the rising sign, together with the latitude.
`ayanamsaValue`	No	Custom sidereal frame value in degrees. Required when ayanamsa is "custom" and ignored otherwise. Use it to reconcile exactly against a specific reference program.
`signDoshaScheme`	No	Which classical sign table the rising sign and the Moon sign are read through. "satyacharya" is the twelve-sign extract appended to Brihat Jataka 18.20, carried in two independent public-domain translations that agree on all twelve rows, and is the default. "bphs" is the Brihat Parasara Hora Sastra rule by elemental triplicity. The two agree exactly on three signs of twelve, overlap in part on seven, and share no humour at all on Scorpio or Sagittarius, so the choice can change the reading outright and is echoed in the response.	satyacharya

Schema Changelog

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

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Despite readOnlyHint=true covering safety, the description adds substantial behavioral context: it reveals that the composite dosha blend is a RoxyAPI convention rather than classical, that version and weights ship in the response, and that every response includes a general-wellness/cultural-interest disclaimer. It also flags that ayanamsa choice can change the reading and that signDoshaScheme can change it outright. These are precisely the kinds of non-obvious behaviors an agent needs to know.

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?

Three sentences, no fluff, and the most decision-relevant facts are front-loaded: what it reads, what it returns, and what is conventional versus classical. The sentence about the composite being a RoxyAPI convention is the longest and could arguably be tightened, but every clause earns its place. Minor deduction for the last sentence packing disclaimer behavior into an already dense sentence, but overall excellent.

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?

For a read-only tool with 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description tells the agent what will come back (vata/pitta/kapha shares, verses, composite metadata, disclaimer) and which inputs drive which factors. The only somewhat open question is the exact output shape, but without an output schema the description cannot be expected to provide it and it does enough: it names the parts of the response. Complete for an AI agent selecting and invoking it.

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% and every parameter has a rich description already, including sensitivity notes for time and ayanamsa. The top-level description adds no parameter-level detail, but it does provide the interpretive framing that the three factors are rising sign, Moon sign, and strongest graha by shadbala, which contextualizes why those inputs matter. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already carries the heavy lifting.

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 object ('Read the Ayurvedic constitution from a sidereal birth chart') and immediately enumerates the exact output (vata, pitta, kapha shares with verses). It also states the three astrological factors scored, clearly distinguishing this from any generic Ayurveda endpoint. The title reinforces it and the description elevates it.

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 says what the tool does and names the three factors it reads, which implies this tool is for birth-chart-derived constitution rather than daily or seasonal routines. It does not explicitly name alternative siblings or state when not to use it, but the heavy specificity of the factors and the mention that the composite is a convention create clear usage context. It lacks explicit exclusions such as 'for daily wellness use get_ayurveda_daily instead'.

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 tools Inspect

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

Need Help?