AstroWay Astrology API (full catalogue)

Star Map (SVG)

astroway_render_star_map

Read-onlyIdempotent

Stereographic projection of caller-supplied points (RA/Dec). Handles brightness magnitude scaling and labels.

[Group: Visualization] [Endpoint: POST /v1/render/star-map] [Required: points] [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": {
      "points": "<points>"
    },
    "name": "astroway_render_star_map"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`title`	No
`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.
`points`	Yes
`options`	No
`precision`	No	Compact mode: round fractional numbers to this many decimals. Longitudes carry 14 by default; 2 is finer than any chart is drawn.
`zenithDecDeg`	No
`capAltitudeDeg`	No
`observerLatDeg`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`svg`	No
`format`	No
`byteLength`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed6 schema fields changedNov 7, 2026

removedOutput schema / properties / byteLength / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "number"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

addedOutput schema / properties / byteLength / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "number",
+  "null"
+]
```

removedOutput schema / properties / format / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

addedOutput schema / properties / format / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```

removedOutput schema / properties / svg / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

addedOutput schema / properties / svg / type

Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]

First observedOct 5, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds useful operational context (POST endpoint, 10-credit Tier 1 cost, magnitude scaling and labels), but it does not disclose that the default output format is json while the title advertises SVG, nor any limits on point count.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core mechanism front-loaded, followed by compact bracketed metadata. Nothing is padded, though the metadata lines partly duplicate what annotations/schema already convey.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but for an 8-parameter projection tool with nested options the description leaves the observer/zenith/altitude-cap semantics and the format default unexplained. An agent can call it with the required minimum but will likely mis-set optional parameters.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 25% across 8 parameters, and the description mentions only points (RA/Dec) and magnitude. It says nothing about observerLatDeg, zenithDecDeg, capAltitudeDeg, options.format/theme/size, or fields/precision, which are the parameters that actually change the rendered result.

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 a specific operation and resource: a stereographic projection rendered from caller-supplied RA/Dec points. The phrase 'caller-supplied points' distinguishes it from the many sibling renderers that take a chart or birth data (render_wheel_western, render_bi_wheel), so an agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives among the ~15 render_* siblings, and no stated prerequisites beyond 'Required: points'. Nothing tells the agent when to pick this over render_cosmogram or render_wheel_western.

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?