AstroWay Astrology API (full catalogue)

Generate Relocation Report (PDF or HTML)

astroway_reports_relocation

Compare up to five places for one birth chart as a multi-page A4 PDF (default) or live HTML (add ?format=html). Per place: the relocated ascendant and midheaven with the signed shift from birth, which planets changed house (the substantive difference, diffed rather than left as two tables), every astrocartography line running within 300 km with its interpretation text, and supportive/challenging scores across the 19 life categories. With more than one place a side-by-side comparison leads the document.

[Group: Reports] [Endpoint: POST /v1/reports/relocation] [Required: chart, locations] [Cost: 5,000 credits (Tier 7)] ⚠️ Premium — ~50% of free monthly budget. Confirm with user before invoking.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`chart`	Yes	Birth data for a single natal chart. Required: date (YYYY-MM-DD), time (HH:mm:ss), latitude and longitude in decimal degrees. The short forms lat, lon, lng and tz are rejected with 400 INVALID_FIELD; pass the full names. timezoneOffset is hours from UTC and defaults to 0, meaning UTC; send timezone instead (an IANA name such as Europe/Kyiv, or auto) and the offset for that date is worked out, summer time included. city is a display label only: nothing here geocodes it, so it never stands in for coordinates. houseSystem is a single Swiss Ephemeris letter, P by default; a name such as "Placidus" is refused, and the case matters because I and i are two different Sunshine systems.
`orbKm`	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.
`language`	No
`locations`	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.
`categories`	No
`whitelabel`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	No
`expires_at`	No
`page_count`	No
`byte_length`	No
`duration_ms`	No
`storage_key`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the 5,000-credit Tier 7 cost, the ~50% free-budget consumption, and the instruction to confirm with the user. It also discloses the default format and the diffing behavior of the report. It does not cover auth needs or rate limits, so not a full 5, especially given readOnlyHint=false.

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?

Long but front-loaded, leading with scope and output format before enumerating report contents. Every clause conveys a real feature (ascendant/midheaven shift, house diffs, ACG lines, category scores). Slightly dense prose, but nothing is filler.

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 costly multi-parameter report generator it covers the essentials: required inputs, output format, cost gating, and document contents. Since an output schema is present, return values needn't be spelled out. The remaining gap is explanatory coverage of the secondary parameters (orbKm, fields, precision, categories, whitelabel, language).

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 only 38% across 8 parameters. The description maps 'places' to locations (max five) and the HTML format switch, and its mention of the 300 km line radius and 19 categories gestures at orbKm and categories, but chart, fields, precision, language, and whitelabel are left to the schema. Baseline 3 for the low coverage with partial compensation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (compare up to five places for one birth chart) and the concrete output formats (multi-page A4 PDF by default, live HTML via ?format=html). It details the exact per-place contents, so an agent can distinguish this report generator from the geo point-lookup siblings.

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?

Gives useful triggering context (comparison across up to five relocation candidates, cost gating with 'Confirm with user before invoking'), but never names an alternative tool or states when NOT to use it versus siblings like astroway_geo_relocation or astroway_geo_acg_line_report. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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?