Deterministic Pythagorean numerology MCP server. Life Path, Expression/Destiny, Soul Urge, Personality, Maturity, and Personal Year with reduction trails, plus compatibility. No AI, no API key.
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 3.4/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of Pythagorean numerology (life path, name numbers, compatibility, full profile) with no overlap in purpose.
All tool names follow a consistent pattern of lowercase, underscore-separated descriptive words (e.g., life_path, numerology_profile).
With 4 tools, the server covers the core numerology functions without being too sparse or bloated, fitting its focused purpose.
The tool set covers all major Pythagorean numerology components: Life Path, Expression, Soul Urge, Personality, Birthday, Maturity, Personal Year, and compatibility.
compatibilityCInspectNumerology compatibility between two Life Path numbers (1–9 or master 11/22/33).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| a | Yes | ||
| b | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description only states basic purpose; does not explain output format, side effects, or behavior for invalid inputs. Agent lacks information on what the tool returns or how it operates.
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?
Single, well-formed sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. No wasted words; front-loaded with key information.
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?
Despite the tool's apparent simplicity, the description lacks completeness. Without output schema or behavioral details, the agent cannot predict the tool's response or handle edge cases. More context could be added to compensate for absent annotations.
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 has 0% description coverage. The description adds that parameters are Life Path numbers in range 1-9 or 11/22/33, which provides some context beyond bare schema. However, it does not specify ordering, allowed outer values, or format constraints.
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?
Description clearly states it computes numerology compatibility between two Life Path numbers, and specifies the valid range. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like life_path or name_numbers.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools exist (life_path, name_numbers, numerology_profile) but the description gives no contextual cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
life_pathBInspectLife Path number (the core numerology number) reduced from a birth date, with reduction trail and meaning.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| day | Yes | ||
| year | Yes | ||
| month | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the output includes a reduction trail and meaning, but fails to mention whether it is read-only, error handling for invalid dates, or any security/permission implications. The behavioral context is partial.
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 a single concise sentence with no redundancy. Slightly more clarity could be achieved by removing the redundant 'core numerology number' phrase, but it remains efficient overall.
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 zero schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter constraints, return structure details, and error/edge-case behavior. A more comprehensive description is needed for this three-parameter tool.
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 0%, yet the description adds no detail about parameter formats or constraints (e.g., month 1-12, day 1-31). It only implies they form a birth date. This is insufficient given the lack of schema documentation.
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 the Life Path number from a birth date, including reduction trail and meaning. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'compatibility' and 'numerology_profile' by focusing specifically on this core numerology number.
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 for obtaining a Life Path number, but no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives (e.g., use 'numerology_profile' for a full profile). Siblings exist, but no comparative direction is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
name_numbersBInspectExpression/Destiny, Soul Urge and Personality numbers from a name, Pythagorean method, with meanings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It states the tool computes numbers and provides meanings, but does not mention edge cases (e.g., invalid characters in name), whether it modifies anything (it shouldn't), or any rate limits. It is adequate but not thorough.
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 a single sentence that front-loads the key outputs (Expression/Destiny, Soul Urge, Personality numbers) and is concise with no wasted words.
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 tool's simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description is mostly adequate but fails to differentiate from siblings or clarify what 'with meanings' implies for the output. It lacks context on prerequisites or example usage.
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 0%, and the description only says 'from a name' without elaborating on what constitutes a valid name (e.g., full name, treatment of spaces, case sensitivity). The parameter 'name' is not explained beyond its type.
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 specific numerology numbers (Expression/Destiny, Soul Urge, and Personality) from a name using the Pythagorean method with meanings. It is a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like life_path which is likely about birth date numbers.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like compatibility, life_path, or numerology_profile. The context is implied but no when-not or exclusion criteria are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
numerology_profileAInspectFull deterministic Pythagorean numerology profile from a name and birth date: Life Path, Expression/Destiny, Soul Urge, Personality, Birthday, Maturity and Personal Year, each with reduction trail. No AI.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| day | Yes | ||
| name | No | ||
| year | Yes | ||
| month | Yes | ||
| targetYear | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses key behavioral trait: deterministic ('No AI'). Lists all output components with reduction trail. No annotations provided, so description carries burden; it does well but could mention error handling or missing parameter behavior.
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?
Single, efficiently worded sentence. Every phrase adds value: 'deterministic', 'full profile', 'each with reduction trail'. Front-loaded and no fluff.
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?
No output schema, but description compensates by listing all output components and mentioning reduction trail. Could clarify optionality of name and purpose of targetYear for full completeness.
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 0%. Description only mentions 'name and birth date' but does not explain all 5 parameters (e.g., targetYear is missing). Adds some meaning but incomplete.
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?
Description clearly states the tool generates a full Pythagorean numerology profile from name and birth date, listing specific components (Life Path, Expression, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings (compatibility, life_path, name_numbers) by being a comprehensive profile.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this vs sibling tools. The 'No AI' hint is useful but doesn't compare to alternatives like 'compatibility' or 'life_path'.
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!
