AstroWay Astrology API (full catalogue)

KP: Ascendant sub-lord

astroway_vedic_kp_asc_sub

Read-onlyIdempotent

Sub-lord of the Ascendant: the canonical "ruling indicator" for the chart's primary motivation, life direction, and dominant karmic theme per K.S. Krishnamurti Reader I-II.

[Group: Vedic] [Cost: 20 credits (Tier 2)]

Input Schema

TableJSON 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

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chain`	No
`lagna`	No
`meaning`	No
`ascSubLord`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

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 the non-obvious credit cost (20 credits, Tier 2) and cites the interpretive source (K.S. Krishnamurti Reader I-II), but says nothing about prerequisites such as the KP convention of a krishnamurti ayanamsa.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and its meaning in one sentence, and the Group/Cost tags are compact, scannable metadata. Slightly ornamental phrasing ('canonical "ruling indicator"') but no real padding.

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 need no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. The gaps are on the input side: 15-param schema at 33% coverage plus no mention that KP calculations conventionally assume the krishnamurti ayanamsa, leaving an agent under-informed for correct invocation.

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?

15 parameters with only 33% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them. It does not clarify defaults (lahiri for ayanamsa, P house system), the meaning of fields, or any KP-specific input expectation, 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?

States a specific resource (the Ascendant's sub-lord) and even explains its role as the 'ruling indicator' for motivation and life direction. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like astroway_vedic_kp_sub_lords, astroway_vedic_kp_cusps, or astroway_vedic_kp_ruling_planets, which an agent must choose between.

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, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. The astrology gloss implies the interpretive context but gives an agent no rule for selecting this over other KP tools.

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?