Kabbalah MCP Server by RoxyAPI

Get the sephirah of the day - Omer count API with the sephirot pairing

get_kabbalah_daily

Read-only

Return the day of the Omer count for a date, with the sephirah of the week, the sephirah of the day inside it, the printed Hebrew label and a composed reading. The count is a real, dated, forty nine day observance rather than an invented daily, so outside the window the response says the count is not running and gives the date it next opens. Built for daily widgets, Jewish calendar features and lifecycle emails that want a dated reading rather than a random one.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`date`	No	Date in YYYY-MM-DD. Defaults to the current UTC date when omitted, so a caller that wants a fixed answer should send one.
`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
`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.
`timezone`	No	IANA name or decimal offset, used only to decide which calendar date it is where the caller is when date is omitted. It does not move the count, which is a calendar count rather than a clock one.
`afterSunset`	No	Set true when the moment falls after nightfall, which advances the Hebrew date by one day because the Hebrew day begins in the evening. It is a caller assertion rather than a computation, since sunset depends on a place and this route takes none.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`day`	No
`date`	Yes
`week`	No
`inOmer`	Yes
`reading`	Yes
`dayInWeek`	No
`nextStart`	No
`hebrewDate`	No
`daySephirah`	No
`hebrewLabel`	No
`weekSephirah`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 20, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "date": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "day": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "dayInWeek": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "daySephirah": {
+      "properties": {
+        "english": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "hebrew": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "id": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "romanization": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "id",
+        "hebrew",
+        "romanization",
+        "english"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "hebrewDate": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "hebrewLabel": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "inOmer": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "nextStart": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "reading": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "week": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "weekSephirah": {
+      "properties": {
+        "english": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "hebrew": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "id": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "romanization": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "id",
+        "hebrew",
+        "romanization",
+        "english"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "date",
+    "inOmer",
+    "reading"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavior beyond that: the count is a real, dated 49-day observance, and outside the window the response reports that the count is not running and provides the next opening date. It also clarifies that this is a calendar count rather than a clock count, which is useful for date handling.

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?

The description is three sentences, each earning its place: the first states what is returned, the second explains the date-window behavior and off-window response, and the third names the intended consumers. Key information is front-loaded and there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 a fully documented schema, an output schema present, and read-only annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers everything needed for correct invocation: purpose, date-window behavior, target use cases, and the distinction from random daily content. Nothing essential is missing.

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%, and the input schema already documents all five parameters with types, defaults, examples, and behavioral notes. The description itself only adds the high-level notion of 'for a date' and does not need to explain parameters further, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 first sentence identifies a specific verb ('Return'), a precise resource ('the day of the Omer count for a date'), and the concrete returned fields (sephirah of the week, sephirah of the day, Hebrew label, composed reading). This clearly separates it from the sibling Kabbalah tools, which concern ciphers, letters, names, and the tree rather than the dated Omer count.

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 gives a clear intended audience: 'daily widgets, Jewish calendar features and lifecycle emails that want a dated reading rather than a random one.' It also contrasts the tool with an 'invented daily' concept. However, it never explicitly names sibling alternatives or states when not to use them, so an agent must infer exclusions from sibling names and the Omer-specific wording.

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

All Kabbalah MCP Server by RoxyAPI tools Inspect

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

Need Help?