Tarot MCP Server by RoxyAPI

Love Spread (5 cards)

post_tarot_spreads_love

Read-only

Perform a specialized 5-card relationship tarot spread analyzing romantic connections, emotional dynamics, and partnership potential. This love-focused reading examines five crucial relationship aspects: You (your current emotional state, needs, and what you bring to the relationship), Partner/Other (their emotional perspective, desires, and energy), Relationship Dynamic (the current energy and connection between you both), Challenge (obstacles needing attention, healing, or communication), and Outcome (where this romantic connection is naturally heading). Perfect for dating apps, relationship counseling platforms, matchmaking services, wellness apps, and romantic guidance tools. Provides deep insight into new relationships, existing partnerships, potential connections, breakup recovery, or self-love journeys. Ideal for understanding compatibility, resolving conflicts, strengthening bonds, or deciding whether to pursue or continue a relationship. Each position reveals emotional truths combining traditional tarot relationship wisdom with modern relationship psychology. Use for individual readings or couples readings to gain perspective on romantic situations from singleness to marriage.

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
`seed`	No	Optional seed for reproducible results. The same seed always draws the same five cards into the same love positions, which is what lets a reading be shared or re-rendered. Omit for a random draw.
`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.
`question`	No	Optional querent question to focus the love spread. It is echoed back on the reading and gives the five relationship positions their context. Omit for general relationship guidance.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description conveys what the reading covers and the meaning of each position, but does not add operational behavior details such as reproducibility, side effects, or response-level explanation beyond what the schema provides.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is useful but overly repetitive and promotional: 'Perfect for...', 'Ideal for...', and 'Use for...' are redundant, and phrases like 'from singleness to marriage' do not aid an agent. The five-position information is valuable, but it could be delivered in half the length.

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?

For a tool with zero required parameters and a fully documented schema, the reading content, position breakdown, and use-case guidance provide enough to select and invoke the tool correctly. The main gap is that there is no output_schema and the output shape is not clearly described, but the description is otherwise complete for this tool's type.

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 already describes all four parameters with full coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the reading itself, but does not enhance meaning of lang, seed, compact, or question beyond what the schema already specifies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('specialized 5-card relationship spread') and enumerates the five card positions with meaningful semantic names. This clearly sets it apart from sibling tools like career and three-card spreads even without explicitly naming them.

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 clearly states the intended domain ('romantic connections', 'dating apps', 'couples readings', 'breakup recovery', 'self-love journeys'), making it easy to select for love/relationship scenarios. It lacks explicit exclusions or explicit alternatives, but the context is unambiguous.

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

All Tarot 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

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: deck list/detail, daily draws, generic draws, four named spreads, custom spreads, and yes/no readings. Even the overlapping draw endpoints are distinguishable by their specific use cases.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names consistently follow a snake_case verb_tarot_resource pattern, which makes the toolset predictable and easy to navigate. The only minor oddity is get_tarot_cards_id, but it does not break the overall convention.

Tool Count5/5

Ten tools is an ideal size for a tarot API: two reference tools, one daily draw, one generic draw, four fixed spreads, one custom spread, and one yes/no tool. Each tool earns its place without overlap or bloat.

Completeness5/5

The surface covers the full tarot domain: browsing cards, retrieving detailed card interpretations, drawing cards, multiple popular spread types, custom spreads, and targeted yes/no guidance. There are no obvious dead ends or critical missing workflows.

Resources

Need Help?