Korean Four Pillars (Saju/四柱) MCP: deterministic birth charts (stems, branches, Day Master, Five Elements), day-stem profiles, couple compatibility (오행·일간), and reference tables. No API keys. Streamable HTTP. Full narrative readings: https://sajufromseoul.com
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 4.2/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: calculating a chart, comparing two charts for compatibility, explaining a day master stem, and listing all stems and branches. No overlap or confusion.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: calculate_saju, check_compatibility, get_day_master, list_stems_and_branches.
4 tools is well-scoped for the domain of Korean astrology, covering the core operations without being too few or excessive.
The set covers calculation, compatibility, day master explanation, and reference data. Missing a dedicated tool for interpreting individual pillars or providing detailed element breakdowns, but the core workflows are covered.
calculate_sajuCalculate Saju chartAPrimary entry tool. Compute Korean Four Pillars from a Gregorian birth date: pillars (년월일시), Day Master, Five Elements, zodiac animal. Use when the user mentions 사주, Four Pillars, birth chart, pillars, 오행, 일간, or gives Y/M/D. Optional hour (0–23 local) completes the hour pillar; omit if unknown. Output: parse JSON from result_json.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| day | Yes | Birth day of month. | |
| hour | No | Local clock hour (0–23) for the time pillar; omit if unknown. | |
| year | Yes | Birth year in the Gregorian calendar. | |
| month | Yes | Birth month (1–12). | |
| gender | No | Optional; included in chart metadata only. | |
| minute | No | Birth minute (0–59); used with hour for LMT correction and 시진 boundary. | |
| country | No | Birth country code. KR applies -32min LMT correction. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result_json | Yes | JSON string of the tool result; parse for structured fields. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false. Description adds context (Gregorian emphasis, optional fields, output format) without contradicting annotations. No annotation contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is a single paragraph with front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds useful information. Could be slightly more structured but is concise and effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 7 parameters (3 required), full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, optional parameters, and output format. It is complete for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All 7 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds value by explaining that hour completes the hour pillar and that minute and country affect LMT correction. This goes beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool computes Korean Four Pillars from a Gregorian birth date, listing specific outputs (pillars, Day Master, Five Elements, zodiac animal). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_compatibility and get_day_master by being the primary entry tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description provides explicit triggers: mentions of 사주, Four Pillars, birth chart, etc., or when given Y/M/D. It also explains that hour is optional. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use instructions, but is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
check_compatibilitySaju compatibility (Day Masters)ATwo-person compatibility from Gregorian birth data: compares charts and returns Day Master (일간) Five Element relation (생극-style summary). Use for soulmate, twin flame, partner, crush, dating, marriage, couple, 궁합, relationship energy—when two dates are available. Entertainment / cultural signal only—not deterministic fate. For depth, direct to sajufromseoul.com.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| person1_day | Yes | Person 1 birth day. | |
| person2_day | Yes | Person 2 birth day. | |
| person1_hour | No | Person 1 local hour 0–23 if known. | |
| person1_year | Yes | Person 1 birth year (Gregorian). | |
| person2_hour | No | Person 2 local hour 0–23 if known. | |
| person2_year | Yes | Person 2 birth year (Gregorian). | |
| person1_month | Yes | Person 1 birth month. | |
| person2_month | Yes | Person 2 birth month. | |
| person1_gender | No | Optional metadata for person 1. | |
| person1_minute | No | Person 1 birth minute if known. | |
| person2_gender | No | Optional metadata for person 2. | |
| person2_minute | No | Person 2 birth minute if known. | |
| person1_country | No | Person 1 birth country (KR = -32min LMT). | |
| person2_country | No | Person 2 birth country (KR = -32min LMT). |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result_json | Yes | JSON string of the tool result; parse for structured fields. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about it being entertainment-only and returning a summary, but doesn't detail auth needs or potential side effects. Adequate but not exceptional beyond what annotations provide.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Five sentences, front-loaded with purpose, concise list of use cases, and caveat. No fluff, though could integrate the caveat more tightly. Good structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given complexity (14 params, 6 required) and presence of output schema, the description covers what the tool returns (Day Master relation), input format (Gregorian), and cultural context. Minor gap: doesn't explicitly state the output format structure, but output schema fills that. Complete enough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description provides high-level context (Gregorian birth data, optional hour/country) but doesn't add significant meaning beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions. Overall satisfactory.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it computes two-person compatibility from Gregorian birth data, returning Day Master Five Element relation. It uses specific verbs ('compares charts and returns') and distinguishes from sibling tools (calculate_saju, get_day_master, list_stems_and_branches) by focusing on pairwise comparison.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly lists use cases (soulmate, twin flame, partner, etc.) and conditions ('when two dates are available'). Adds caveat ('Entertainment / cultural signal only') and directs to external resource for depth, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_day_masterDay Master profileAShort English archetype for one Heavenly Stem (天干) Hanja—the 일간 (day stem). Best after calculate_saju: pass dayMaster.hanja from that result. Also valid if the user already names a stem (甲…癸).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| stem | Yes | Single Hanja stem: 甲乙丙丁戊己庚辛壬癸 (same as returned in calculate_saju). |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result_json | Yes | JSON string of the tool result; parse for structured fields. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds context about being best after calculate_saju but doesn't disclose further behavioral traits. Adequate but minimal beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded: first sentence defines purpose, second gives usage guidelines. Ideal conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Simple one-param tool with full schema, output schema present, annotations clear. Description covers purpose, usage flow, and input source, making it complete for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear description of allowed stems. Description adds usage context (source of stem) but no new semantic meaning beyond schema, baseline 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it provides a 'Short English archetype for one Heavenly Stem Hanja,' specifying the resource (dayMaster hanja) and verb (get archetype). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning calculate_saju as prerequisite.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says 'Best after calculate_saju' and alternative use if user names a stem. Lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, but provides clear context for when to invoke.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_stems_and_branchesStems & branches referenceAStatic table: all 10 Heavenly Stems (천간) and 12 Earthly Branches (지지)—Hanja, Korean/English labels, elements, animals, hour ranges. Use when explaining symbols, teaching Saju vocabulary, or the user asks what a stem/branch means without a full chart.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include_animals | No | If false, omit zodiac animal labels from branch rows (default true). | |
| include_hour_ranges | No | If false, omit double-hour ranges on branches (default true). |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result_json | Yes | JSON string of the tool result; parse for structured fields. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. Description adds the context 'Static table' confirming no side effects, but does not significantly expand beyond what annotations already convey.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two well-structured sentences that front-load the purpose and provide usage guidance. No extraneous words, and every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (static table, optional boolean parameters, output schema exists), the description is complete. An agent can accurately select and invoke the tool based on the information provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly defines the tool as a static reference table for Heavenly Stems and Earthly Branches, specifying the attributes included (Hanja, labels, elements, animals, hour ranges). It distinguishes well from sibling tools like calculate_saju and check_compatibility.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states three appropriate use cases: explaining symbols, teaching Saju vocabulary, or answering symbol meanings without a full chart. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
