AstroWay Astrology API (full catalogue)

Compatibility: unified couple report

astroway_vedic_compatibility_couple_report

Read-onlyIdempotent

One call: Ashtakoot, Dashakoota, Porutham, dosha cancellation, Navamsa and Dasha compatibility, each identical to its own route, plus a summary that only counts what they say.

[Group: Vedic] [Endpoint: POST /v1/vedic/compatibility/couple-report] [Required: chart1, chart2] [Cost: 50 credits (Tier 3)]

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": {
      "chart1": "<chart1>",
      "chart2": "<chart2>"
    },
    "name": "astroway_vedic_compatibility_couple_report"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`years`	No	Length of the dasha window in years, 1 to 30. Default 10.
`chart1`	Yes
`chart2`	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.
`school`	No	Porutham school. tamil (default) or kerala; they differ on Dinam, Stree Deergham, Rasi and on which factors are essential.
`fromDate`	No	Start of the dasha window, YYYY-MM-DD (UTC). Today when omitted.
`precision`	No	Compact mode: round fractional numbers to this many decimals. Longitudes carry 14 by default; 2 is finer than any chart is drawn.
`mangalSchool`	No	Houses and reference points for Kuja dosha. south (default): 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 12 from Lagna, Moon and Venus. north: the same houses from Lagna and Moon. strict: 1, 4, 7, 8, 12 from Lagna only.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`bride`	No
`dasha`	No
`groom`	No
`method`	No
`school`	No
`navamsa`	No
`summary`	No
`porutham`	No
`ashtakoot`	No
`dashakoota`	No
`mangalSchool`	No
`doshaCancellation`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely non-schema information: the endpoint, the 50-credit Tier 3 cost, and the guarantee that the summary 'only counts what they say' rather than introducing new judgement. Latency, determinism across calls, and failure behaviour with incomplete birth data are unmentioned.

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 front-loaded sentence plus three bracketed metadata lines (group, endpoint, required, cost) that are easy to scan and earn their place. Slight density in the first sentence, which packs six method names into one clause, but nothing is padding.

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 an 8-parameter aggregator with a published output schema and a well-documented nested chart schema, the description covers what it does, what it costs, and what it requires. The main omission is routing guidance against astroway_vedic_compatibility_full and the individual compatibility endpoints it duplicates.

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 75% and the schema itself documents the meaningful semantics (chart1 as groom and Porutham's counting direction, chart2 as bride, the school/mangalSchool/fields options). The description only repeats the two required parameter names, adding nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

The first sentence names the exact deliverable (a unified couple compatibility report) and enumerates the six components it aggregates: Ashtakoot, Dashakoota, Porutham, dosha cancellation, Navamsa and Dasha. The claim 'each identical to its own route' ties it explicitly to the sibling tools and tells the agent the aggregate is not a separate computation, which no other sibling tool does.

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: an agent can infer 'use this when you want everything in one call instead of six'. There is no explicit when-not guidance, and notably no differentiation from the close sibling astroway_vedic_compatibility_full, which an agent cannot choose between without opening both schemas.

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?