AstroWay Astrology API (full catalogue)

Timeline (SVG)

astroway_render_timeline

Read-onlyIdempotent

Gantt-style horizontal timeline of transit/aspect events over a date window. Caller supplies events array.

[Group: Visualization] [Endpoint: POST /v1/render/timeline] [Required: rangeStart, rangeEnd, events] [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": {
      "rangeStart": "<rangeStart>",
      "rangeEnd": "<rangeEnd>",
      "events": "<events>"
    },
    "name": "astroway_render_timeline"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

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

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context (10-credit Tier 1 cost, required params, endpoint), but it omits that the default output format is JSON rather than SVG despite the SVG title, a detail an agent would need.

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 prose is two tight, front-loaded sentences, and the bracketed metadata block (group, endpoint, required, cost) is scannable rather than filler. Nothing in the text is redundant, though the metadata block is slightly boilerplate.

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 described, and cost/required fields are stated. But for a tool with nested event objects and compact-mode/theme options, the description is too thin to fully equip an agent to call it correctly.

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 33% across 6 parameters, and the description compensates only by naming the events array. The nested event fields (label, start, end, exact, color, category) have no descriptions anywhere, and fields/precision compact-mode parameters are never mentioned in the description, leaving real semantic gaps.

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 gives a concrete verb and artifact ('Gantt-style horizontal timeline') scoped to 'transit/aspect events over a date window', which is clear enough to picture the output. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like astroway_aspects_aspect_timeline or astroway_render_aspect_grid, so an agent must guess which of the timeline-ish tools to pick.

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?

'Caller supplies events array' implies a prerequisite (events must already be computed) but the description never says when to prefer this over the aspects timeline/bar tools, nor does it exclude any case. Usage is inferable but not guided.

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?