AstroWay Astrology API (full catalogue)

Register Planetary-Hour-Tick Webhook

astroway_webhooks_planetary_hour_tick

Fires at every planetary hour boundary (24/day).

[Group: Webhooks] [Endpoint: POST /v1/webhooks/planetary-hour-tick] [Required: url] [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": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "astroway_webhooks_planetary_hour_tick"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No
`event`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedNov 7, 2026

removedOutput schema / properties / event / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

addedOutput schema / properties / event / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```

removedOutput schema / properties / id / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "number"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

addedOutput schema / properties / id / type

Added value: +[
+  "number",
+  "null"
+]

First observedOct 5, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world write, so the description's job is supplemental — and it does add real context the annotations lack: the 24/day delivery cadence and a concrete cost of 10 credits (Tier 1), which matters before registering a recurring billable webhook. It stops short of disclosing auth/secret verification, retry behavior, or what happens on repeat registration of the same URL.

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?

Four short bracketed lines with the triggering event front-loaded and no filler prose; the metadata-block format is scannable. '[Group: Webhooks]' is mildly redundant given the tool name already contains 'webhooks'.

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?

With annotations and an output schema present, the return payload needn't be explained, and cost/cadence are covered. However, for a registration tool whose sibling set includes both a streaming equivalent and a generic subscribe endpoint, the definition omits how delivery is authenticated and how it differs from those alternatives.

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 67%: `fields` and `precision` are already documented in-schema with examples, and `url` is self-evident from type/format. The description contributes nothing beyond repeating '[Required: url]', which duplicates the schema's required array rather than clarifying format constraints, so the remaining gap (no URL validation/hosting requirements) is left unaddressed.

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 names a concrete event and cadence ('Fires at every planetary hour boundary (24/day)') plus the endpoint POST /v1/webhooks/planetary-hour-tick, which together make the registration action clear even though the description's verb ('Fires') describes the event rather than the tool's operation. It does not distinguish this from the near-identical streaming sibling astroway_stream_planetary_hour_changes or from astroway_webhooks_subscribe.

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: nothing says to pick this over the streaming planetary-hour tool or the generic subscribe tool, and no prerequisites (publicly reachable HTTPS URL, verification, duplicate-subscription behavior) are stated. The only guidance is the implicit '[Required: url]' restatement.

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?