AstroWay Astrology API (full catalogue)

Doshas: Pitru (ancestral)

astroway_vedic_doshas_parashara_pitru

Read-onlyIdempotent

Pitru Dosha: Sun + Rahu or Sun + Saturn conjunct, plus Sun in 9th house as auxiliary marker. Note: BPHS lists 14 patterns of Pitru Dosha; this endpoint detects 3 most-cited conjunction patterns. Full canonical detection (9th-lord placement, malefic in 9H) is not done yet.

[Group: Vedic] [Endpoint: POST /v1/vedic/doshas/parashara/pitru] [Required: date, time, latitude, longitude] [Cost: 20 credits (Tier 2)]

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`city`	No
`date`	Yes
`name`	No
`time`	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.
`ayanamsa`	No	Sidereal school by name. Lahiri when omitted. Equivalent to ayanamsaId; send either.
`latitude`	Yes
`timezone`	No	IANA zone name such as Europe/Kyiv, or auto to look the zone up from latitude and longitude. The server takes the offset that zone kept at this local date and time, summer time included, and uses it in place of timezoneOffset. A clock time that happened twice takes the first occurrence; one skipped when clocks went forward takes the offset from before the change. Abbreviations such as EST are refused. Before 1970 the tz database is not reliable for every place, so send timezoneOffset when the local clock is known.
`cosmogram`	No
`longitude`	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.
`ayanamsaId`	No
`zodiacType`	No
`houseSystem`	No		P
`timezoneOffset`	No	Hours from UTC at the given moment, not minutes. Fractional zones are hours too: 5.5 for India, 5.75 for Nepal, -3.5 for Newfoundland. Defaults to 0, meaning UTC. Ignored when timezone is sent.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`dosha`	No
`school`	No
`details`	No
`present`	No
`severity`	No
`lagnaSign`	No
`affectedHouses`	No
`contributingPlanets`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 5, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: it detects only 3 of the 14 BPHS patterns and explicitly states what full canonical detection is missing. Cost (20 credits) is also disclosed.

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 detection rule is front-loaded, followed by a clearly labeled limitation note and structured metadata block. No filler, though the [Group/Endpoint/Required/Cost] block partially duplicates schema and annotation data.

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 so return values need no explanation, and the description adequately conveys what the tool computes and its known limitations. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, with the only real gap being guidance relative to the sibling dosha tools.

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 coverage is only 33% across 15 parameters. The description merely restates the four required fields already declared in the schema and adds no syntax, format, or meaning for the remaining 11 parameters, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states exactly what is detected (Sun+Rahu or Sun+Saturn conjunction, plus Sun in 9th house as auxiliary), giving a concrete rule set rather than a tautology. It is specific about scope but never names the sibling variants (kp_pitra, lal_kitab_pitra, parashara_full) it must be distinguished from.

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 and no mention of alternatives, despite ~5 Pitru Dosha siblings and a parashara_full aggregate. The limitation note implies this is a partial check, but it never tells the agent when to prefer this endpoint over the fuller or alternate-system variants.

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?