Skip to main content
Glama

Human Design MCP Server by RoxyAPI

Calculate the 26 Human Design gate activations

post_human_design_gates
Read-only

Calculate the 26 gate activations for a birth moment, split into the 13 conscious Personality activations at birth and the 13 unconscious Design activations 88 degrees of solar arc earlier. Each activation reports the planet, gate, line, gate keynote, and the matching I-Ching hexagram. Built for activation columns and detailed chart views.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateYesBirth date in YYYY-MM-DD format. The anchor for both the Personality activations at birth and the Design activations 88 degrees of solar arc earlier.
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
timeYesBirth time in 24-hour HH:MM:SS format. Precision matters: the profile lines and gate boundaries shift with the exact minute of birth.
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.
latitudeNoBirth latitude in decimal degrees. Optional and does not affect the bodygraph, which depends only on ecliptic longitudes. Defaults to 0.
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 activations. True is what professional Human Design software uses (HumanDesign.ai, Total Human Design) and is the value RoxyAPI verifies against, so leave it unset for a standard chart. It matters only when a node sits on a gate boundary, where the choice moves a node gate. Because a gate can be half of a channel, that can change the completed channels and, with them, whether a center reads defined or open, plus the definition, authority, profile or type. A chart where only one center disagrees is the usual shape, since the type and profile often survive unchanged. If another calculator disagrees on any of those, it is almost certainly using the mean node: pass "mean" to match it. Defaults to "true".true
timezoneYesIANA name (e.g. "America/New_York", "Europe/London", "UTC"), decimal hours (e.g. -5 for EST, 1 for CET), or a fixed UTC offset (e.g. "-05:00", "+01:00"). Prefer the IANA name: it is resolved to the DST-correct offset for the birth date, while a fixed offset or decimal is taken literally and will be wrong if it does not match the daylight-saving state on that date. Invalid timezones return 400 with a validation error.
longitudeNoBirth longitude in decimal degrees. Optional and does not affect the bodygraph. Defaults to 0.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false with no contradiction. The description enriches this with the computational behavior — the 13+13 split and the 88-degree solar arc early shift — plus the exact properties reported in each activation (planet, gate, line, keynote, hexagram).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

Three sentences, each with a distinct role: scope, output content, and usage context. The core computation is front-loaded and no sentence is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 still states the return shape at a high level (plans, gate, line, keynote, hexagram), giving an agent enough of an expectation to consume the result. Minor gaps include not indicating output structure/format beyond that and not covering error behavior (e.g., invalid timezone, which is only in the schema). Otherwise the 100% schema coverage fills the remaining context.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of the 8 parameters with its own detailed descriptions (even the subtle effects of nodeType on definition/type/profile). The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies despite the description's high-quality split.

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 ('Calculate the 26 gate activations for a birth moment') and adds precise scope: the 13 conscious Personality activations at birth and 13 unconscious Design activations 88 degrees earlier. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_human_design_gates_number (a single-gate GET) without needing to compare schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The final sentence 'Built for activation columns and detailed chart views' offers a use case context, which is more than none but less than guidance. No sibling is named and no condition for choosing this tool over get_human_design_gates_number or post_human_design_bodygraph is given.

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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

The static reference tools are clearly distinct, and connection, transit, and penta handle unique types of analysis. However, the full bodygraph endpoint already returns type, profile, centers, gates, and channels, so the component-specific calculation endpoints create moderate selection ambiguity.

Naming Consistency4/5

The tools follow a clear post_human_design_ / get_human_design_ pattern, with get_ reserved for reference lookups and post_ used for calculations. The pattern is slightly inconsistent because the two reference tools add _id and _number suffixes, while the calculation tools use plain plural resource names.

Tool Count4/5

Twelve tools is within a reasonable scope and covers the broad Human Design domain, including basic charts, transit, compatibility, and group analysis. The count is slightly higher than strictly necessary because several partial-looking endpoints duplicate the data already returned by the full bodygraph endpoint.

Completeness5/5

The server covers the full core chart generation flow, reference data for centers and gates, profile, type, variables, transit overlays, connection charts, and group connections. There are no obvious dead ends for Human Design apps and a reading or coaching workload seems well supported.

Resources