Skip to main content
Glama

Kabbalah MCP Server by RoxyAPI

by com.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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateNoDate in YYYY-MM-DD. Defaults to the current UTC date when omitted, so a caller that wants a fixed answer should send one.
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
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.
timezoneNoIANA 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.
afterSunsetNoSet 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.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

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. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the Omer count is a real 49-day observance, and outside that window the response explicitly says the count is not running and provides the next opening date. This is useful information an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core return value and output fields, and the second sentence earns its place by explaining the dated-window behavior and typical use cases.

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 does a good job of naming the main returned items: the sephirah of the week, the sephirah of the day, the Hebrew label, and a composed reading. It also covers the important out-of-window response behavior. It does not fully specify the response shape, but given the self-documenting parameters and read-only nature, the remaining gap is minor.

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 documents all five parameters with descriptions, examples, defaults, and an enum, giving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description does not add parameter-level semantics beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

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: 'Return the day of the Omer count for a date' and lists the output fields, so an agent can tell what the tool does. It is clearly distinct from sibling kabbalah tools by its focus on the dated Omer count, but it does not explicitly name or contrast siblings.

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 names concrete intended use cases: daily widgets, Jewish calendar features, and lifecycle emails, and it specifies the selection criterion 'want a dated reading rather than a random one.' It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternative sibling tools.

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 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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools are cleanly separated by resource and verb: collection/detail variants exist for letters and names, tree vs single sephirah is clear, and compute endpoints are distinct. The only meaningful overlap is post_kabbalah_gematria and post_kabbalah_name_profile, which both score a name across gematria ciphers and display candidate Hebrew spellings; the descriptions differentiate their outputs but an agent could easily select the wrong one.

Naming Consistency5/5

Every tool follows the same verb_kabbalah_resource pattern, with get_ for reference lookups and post_ for computations. snake_case is used throughout, and detail variants are marked consistently with _id or _number.

Tool Count5/5

Twelve tools is well within the ideal range and each tool covers a distinct area: catalogues, letters, names, sephirot/tree, daily Omer, and name calculations. The surface is broad enough to be useful without feeling inflated.

Completeness5/5

The API covers the core domain comprehensively: reference data for ciphers, letters, 72 names, sephirot/tree, dated Omer count, and the main name-scoring operations including compatibility. CRUD is not applicable for a read-only/compute server, and get_kabbalah_tree already provides collection-level sephirot data, so there are no obvious dead ends.

Resources