AstroWay Astrology API (full catalogue)

Lo Shu grid

astroway_numerology_lo_shu_grid

Read-onlyIdempotent

The 3x3 Lo Shu square (4 9 2 / 3 5 7 / 8 1 6) filled from the digits of a birth date, with the driver (moolank) and conductor (bhagyank) added as Indian practice does (each can be switched off): present, missing and repeated numbers, the six planes (mental, emotional, practical, thought, will, action) and the arrows, the full and empty lines of the square.

[Group: Numerology: Indian] [Endpoint: POST /v1/numerology/lo-shu-grid] [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_numerology_lo_shu_grid"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`date`	Yes
`fields`	No	Compact mode: comma-separated dotted paths to keep, relative to `data`, e.g. "planets.name,planets.longitude,houses.cusp". Omit for the whole response.
`addDriver`	No	Add the driver (moolank) to the grid. Default true.
`precision`	No	Compact mode: round fractional numbers to this many decimals. Longitudes carry 14 by default; 2 is finer than any chart is drawn.
`addConductor`	No	Add the conductor (bhagyank) to the grid. Default true.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`date`	No
`grid`	No
`added`	No
`cells`	No
`notes`	No
`arrows`	No
`digits`	No
`driver`	No
`planes`	No
`missing`	No
`present`	No
`repeated`	No
`conductor`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the driver/conductor inclusion convention can be switched off per request, the endpoint and required input are surfaced, and the cost (10 credits, Tier 1) is disclosed, which matters for an agent budgeting calls.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the core artifact and then lists the outputs; the bracketed metadata lines are compact and easy to scan. It is information-dense rather than padded, though the parenthetical '4 9 2 / 3 5 7 / 8 1 6' layout detail is of marginal value to an agent deciding whether to call.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still usefully previews the returned sections (planes, arrows, lines, missing/repeated numbers), and it covers cost, endpoint and the required input. For a five-parameter read-only computation this is close to complete; only edge-case behavior (e.g. malformed dates) is unaddressed.

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 coverage is 80%, so 'fields', 'precision', 'addDriver' and 'addConductor' are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the two booleans by naming them in domain terms (driver/moolank, conductor/bhagyank added 'as Indian practice does') and confirming they are optional, but adds nothing about the compact-mode parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does most of the work.

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 names the specific artifact produced (a 3x3 Lo Shu square populated from birth-date digits) and enumerates its contents (present/missing/repeated numbers, six planes, arrows, full/empty lines), so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the many other numerology siblings (Pythagorean, Chaldean, Vedic), though the '[Group: Numerology: Indian]' tag and the uniquely named grid do most of that work implicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: the required 'date' parameter and the grid description make it obvious this is for Lo Shu analysis of a birth date, but there is no statement of when an agent should pick this over, say, a Vedic or Pythagorean chart tool. No exclusions or prerequisites are given beyond the cost line.

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) tools Inspect

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

Need Help?