Kabbalah MCP Server by RoxyAPI

Get one of the 72 names - 72 names of God API by index

get_kabbalah_names_number

Read-only

Return one of the seventy two names by its index: the three letters read out of the verses, the exact positions they were read from, the suffixed name, the ecliptic arc it governs, the sign and the choir. The positions are on the response so a reader can check the derivation against the verses rather than trust it. Built for birth angel detail pages and reference features.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`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
`number`	Yes	Index of the name, 1 to 72.
`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.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`sign`	Yes
`choir`	Yes
`arcEnd`	Yes
`number`	Yes
`suffix`	Yes
`letters`	Yes
`arcStart`	Yes
`degreeInSign`	Yes
`romanization`	Yes
`traditionalName`	Yes
`lettersAsWritten`	Yes
`publishedDisagreement`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 20, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "arcEnd": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "arcStart": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "choir": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "degreeInSign": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "letters": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "lettersAsWritten": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "name": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "number": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "publishedDisagreement": {
+      "properties": {
+        "list": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "prints": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "list",
+        "prints"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "romanization": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "sign": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "suffix": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "traditionalName": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "number",
+    "letters",
+    "lettersAsWritten",
+    "suffix",
+    "name",
+    "romanization",
+    "traditionalName",
+    "arcStart",
+    "arcEnd",
+    "sign",
+    "degreeInSign",
+    "choir"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed5 schema fields changedSep 19, 2026
- changedInput schema / examples
```
Previous value: -[
-  {}
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "number": 27
+  }
+]
```
- addedInput schema / properties / number / maximum
```
Added value: +72
```
- addedInput schema / properties / number / minimum
```
Added value: +1
```
- changedInput schema / properties / number / type
```
Previous value: -[
-  "integer",
-  "null"
-]New value: +"integer"
```
- addedInput schema / required
```
Added value: +[
+  "number"
+]
```
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 behavioral context: the positions are included so readers can verify the derivation against the verses, which goes beyond the structured annotations. It also enumerates the response contents, aiding expectation-setting.

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 concise: two sentences. The primary action and key output content are front-loaded, and the verification rationale is a meaningful addition without any wasted words.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description need not detail return shapes. It covers the tool's purpose, use case, and a distinctive behavioral trait (verifiable derivation). The schema handles parameter specifics, so no critical information 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%, with each parameter (lang, number, compact) fully documented. The description mentions 'by its index,' which aligns with the required `number` parameter, but adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Return one of the seventy two names by its index.' It lists the exact output fields (letters, positions, suffixed name, ecliptic arc, sign, choir), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_kabbalah_names (which likely returns all names).

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 explicit usage context: 'Built for birth angel detail pages and reference features.' It does not name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when to invoke this tool.

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?