Skip to main content
Glama

Tarot MCP Server by RoxyAPI

Get yes/no answer to your question

post_tarot_yes_no
Read-only

Ask a specific question and receive a yes, no, or maybe answer based on a single tarot card draw. Upright cards indicate "Yes" with positive energy, reversed cards indicate "No" with caution, and certain inherently ambiguous cards (The Hanged Man, Wheel of Fortune, Temperance, Two of Swords, Four of Swords) return "Maybe" regardless of orientation since their energy signals pause, reflection, or shifting circumstances. Major Arcana cards give strong definitive answers, Minor Arcana cards give qualified nuanced answers. Returns the answer, strength level, drawn card details, and a contextual interpretation explaining why. Perfect for decision-making apps, quick guidance tools, fortune-telling chatbots, and interactive tarot experiences. Optionally provide a seed for reproducible answers.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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
seedNoOptional seed for reproducible results. Same seed + same question = same answer. Useful for testing, sharing readings, or ensuring consistency. Omit for random draws each time.
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.
questionNoYour specific yes/no question. Be clear and focused. Good: "Should I move to a new city?" Bad: "What should I do about my life?" The more specific the question, the more useful the tarot guidance.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds a highly detailed behavioral model: upright vs reversed meaning, which ambiguous cards return Maybe, and Major Arcana vs Minor Arcana nuance. It also discloses seed-based reproducibility and the exact return payload components.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then expands into behavioral detail, then return value composition, then use cases. Every sentence contributes useful information and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description explains what will be returned: the answer, strength level, drawn card details, and contextual interpretation. It also covers the randomness behavior, the orientation rule, the ambiguous-card rule, and the reproducibility via seed.

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%, so the input schema already documents all four parameters well. The description only reinforces question specificity and seed reproducibility, adding no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 concrete verb + resource combination: asking a specific question and receiving a yes, no, or maybe answer based on a single tarot card draw. This clearly differentiates it from the drawing, daily, and spread sibling tools.

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?

It states the intended use cases: decision-making apps, quick guidance tools, fortune-telling chatbots, and interactive tarot experiences. It does not explicitly name excluded alternatives such as post_tarot_draw or post_tarot_daily, so the when-not guidance remains implicit.

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

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