Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

AstroWay Astrology API (full catalogue)

by info.astroway
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Dreamspell (Argüelles 1990)

astroway_mayan_dreamspell
Read-onlyIdempotent

Modern synchronometer reinterpretation by José Argüelles. Returns kin (1-260) + tone + seal. Distinct from traditional Tzolkin.

[Group: Mayan Calendars] [Endpoint: POST /v1/mayan/dreamspell] [Required: date] [Cost: 10 credits (Tier 1)]

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "date": "<date>"
    },
    "name": "astroway_mayan_dreamspell"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateYes
fieldsNoCompact mode: comma-separated dotted paths to keep, relative to `data`, e.g. "planets.name,planets.longitude,houses.cusp". Omit for the whole response.
precisionNoCompact mode: round fractional numbers to this many decimals. Longitudes carry 14 by default; 2 is finer than any chart is drawn.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
labelNo
notesNo
dreamspellNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • changedOutput schema / properties / dreamspell / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "additionalProperties": {},
-    "properties": {
-      "kin": {
-        "anyOf": [
-          {
-            "type": "number"
-          },
-          {
-            "type": "null"
-          }
-        ]
-      },
-      "seal": {
-        "anyOf": [
-          {
-            "type": "string"
-          },
-          {
-            "type": "null"
-          }
-        ]
-      },
-      "sealIndex": {
-        "anyOf": [
-          {
-            "type": "number"
-          },
-          {
-            "type": "null"
-          }
-        ]
-      },
-      "tone": {
-        "anyOf": [
-          {
-            "type": "string"
-          },
-          {
-            "type": "null"
-          }
-        ]
-      },
-      "toneNumber": {
-        "anyOf": [
-          {
-            "type": "number"
-          },
-          {
-            "type": "null"
-          }
-        ]
-      }
-    },
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "additionalProperties": {},
+    "properties": {
+      "kin": {
+        "type": [
+          "number",
+          "null"
+        ]
+      },
+      "seal": {
+        "type": [
+          "string",
+          "null"
+        ]
+      },
+      "sealIndex": {
+        "type": [
+          "number",
+          "null"
+        ]
+      },
+      "tone": {
+        "type": [
+          "string",
+          "null"
+        ]
+      },
+      "toneNumber": {
+        "type": [
+          "number",
+          "null"
+        ]
+      }
+    },
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
    • removedOutput schema / properties / label / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
    • addedOutput schema / properties / label / type
      Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
    • changedOutput schema / properties / notes / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "items": {
-      "anyOf": [
-        {
-          "type": "string"
-        },
-        {
-          "type": "null"
-        }
-      ]
-    },
-    "type": "array"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "items": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "type": "array"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent lookup, so the description does not need to repeat those traits. It adds useful context beyond annotations by naming the endpoint, required input, credit cost, and the returned fields. It does not discuss authentication or rate limits, but those are minor omissions for this kind of lookup.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The first two sentences are front-loaded and efficient, giving purpose, output, and differentiation immediately. The bracketed metadata is useful but partly repeats schema or transport information, which keeps it from being maximally concise.

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?

The tool is simple, has an output schema, and has annotations covering safety, so the description need not explain return formats in depth. It includes enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly, though more explicit routing versus mayan_full or mayan_calendar_round would improve completeness.

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 schema covers most parameters well, including detailed descriptions for fields and precision, but the required date parameter has only a pattern and no prose meaning in the schema. The description compensates only by repeating that date is required, without clarifying calendar-date expectations or timezone interpretation. With 67% schema description coverage, this meets the baseline but adds little parameter-level value.

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 identifies the specific system (Argüelles Dreamspell synchronometer) and states exactly what it returns: kin (1-260), tone, and seal. It also explicitly distinguishes it from traditional Tzolkin, so an agent can tell the two apart without inspecting schemas.

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 gives clear usage context by saying it is distinct from traditional Tzolkin, which routes agents away from astroway_mayan_tzolkin when Dreamspell is intended. It does not explicitly compare against other Mayan siblings such as mayan_full or mayan_calendar_round, so the guidance is helpful but not fully exhaustive.

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

All AstroWay Astrology API (full catalogue) toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources