Get a prompt by name with optional arguments.
Returns the rendered prompt as JSON with a messages array. Arguments should be provided as a dict mapping argument names to values.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The name of the prompt to get | |
| arguments | No | Optional arguments for the prompt |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return format (JSON with a messages array) and argument structure (dict mapping names to values), but does not mention error behavior (e.g., prompt not found) or any other side effects.
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?
The description is three short, efficient sentences front-loading the core action and output format. Every sentence provides value without unnecessary verbosity.
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?
For a simple retrieval tool with complete schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior. It could add error handling details or reference sibling list_prompts, but these are not critical for a basic get operation.
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 both parameters (name and arguments) are already documented in the schema. The description adds minor clarification about the arguments dict format, but largely repeats what the schema provides, fitting the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with resource 'prompt' and scope 'by name', clearly indicating this retrieves a single prompt. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like list_prompts, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.
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?
The description implies usage when a specific prompt name is known, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_prompts. No exclusions or alternative references are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct astrological function: reference lookups (sign, planet, house, aspect), chart calculations (birth_chart, planetary_positions), transit analysis (current_transits, transit_search), progression, calendar generation, and prompt management. Even similar tools like current_transits and transit_search are clearly differentiated by scope (current vs. period-based).
Naming is largely lowercase_snake_case but inconsistent in verb usage: get_* for reference lookups, while others are noun phrases (birth_chart, planetary_positions) or arbitrary verbs (generate_calendar_events). The pattern is readable but not uniform across the set.
12 tools is well within the ideal range for a domain-specific server. Each tool covers a distinct need without redundancy, and the count feels balanced for an astrology API.
The tool surface covers the core astrological workflow: reference data (signs, planets, houses, aspects), chart generation (birth, positions), transits, progressions, and calendar events. The inclusion of prompt tools also supports interpretation, leaving no obvious dead ends.