Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

AstroWay Astrology API (full catalogue)

by info.astroway
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Long Count

astroway_mayan_long_count
Read-onlyIdempotent

Five-place positional notation: baktun.katun.tun.uinal.kin. Days since 4 Ahau 8 Cumku (3114 BC).

[Group: Mayan Calendars] [Endpoint: POST /v1/mayan/long-count] [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_long_count"
  }
}

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
longCountNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / properties / longCount / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "additionalProperties": {},
-    "properties": {
-      "baktun": {
-        "anyOf": [
-          {
-            "type": "number"
-          },
-          {
-            "type": "null"
-          }
-        ]
-      },
-      "daysSinceCreation": {
-        "anyOf": [
-          {
-            "type": "number"
-          },
-          {
-            "type": "null"
-          }
-        ]
-      },
-      "katun": {
-        "anyOf": [
-          {
-            "type": "number"
-          },
-          {
-            "type": "null"
-          }
-        ]
-      },
-      "kin": {
-        "anyOf": [
-          {
-            "type": "number"
-          },
-          {
-            "type": "null"
-          }
-        ]
-      },
-      "notation": {
-        "anyOf": [
-          {
-            "type": "string"
-          },
-          {
-            "type": "null"
-          }
-        ]
-      },
-      "tun": {
-        "anyOf": [
-          {
-            "type": "number"
-          },
-          {
-            "type": "null"
-          }
-        ]
-      },
-      "uinal": {
-        "anyOf": [
-          {
-            "type": "number"
-          },
-          {
-            "type": "null"
-          }
-        ]
-      }
-    },
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "additionalProperties": {},
+    "properties": {
+      "baktun": {
+        "type": [
+          "number",
+          "null"
+        ]
+      },
+      "daysSinceCreation": {
+        "type": [
+          "number",
+          "null"
+        ]
+      },
+      "katun": {
+        "type": [
+          "number",
+          "null"
+        ]
+      },
+      "kin": {
+        "type": [
+          "number",
+          "null"
+        ]
+      },
+      "notation": {
+        "type": [
+          "string",
+          "null"
+        ]
+      },
+      "tun": {
+        "type": [
+          "number",
+          "null"
+        ]
+      },
+      "uinal": {
+        "type": [
+          "number",
+          "null"
+        ]
+      }
+    },
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds useful operational context beyond the annotations: the HTTP endpoint, the required input, and the cost of 10 credits at Tier 1. It does not describe error behavior, but given the strong annotation coverage, this is informative.

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 compact and front-loads the key concept: five-place positional notation and the epoch. The tagged metadata lines are terse and each carries operational information without unnecessary prose.

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?

For a simple date-conversion tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description supplies the essential context: notation, epoch, required date, endpoint, and cost. It could be slightly more explicit that the date input is converted into Long Count, but nothing critical is missing.

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 67%, with the fields and precision parameters already documented in the schema. The description adds epoch context and states that date is required, but it does not clarify the input date format or calendar system beyond what the schema pattern supplies, so it adds only moderate value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description specifies the Long Count notation and epoch, making it clear this tool produces a Mayan Long Count value. It does not explicitly say it converts an input date into that notation, but the tool name, title, group, and required date make the purpose distinguishable from sibling Mayan calendar tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as astroway_mayan_full, astroway_mayan_calendar_round, or other Mayan calendar endpoints. The required date parameter is noted, but no conditions, exclusions, or decision criteria are provided.

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