AstroWay Core astrology

Astrocartography (ACG)

astroway_geo_acg

Read-onlyIdempotent

Calculate ACG lines for all planets: the geodetic map lines where each planet was on an angle at birth.

[Group: Astro-Geography] [Endpoint: POST /v1/acg] [Required: date, time, latitude, longitude] [Cost: 50 credits (Tier 3)]

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
`lines`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

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 cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds operational context the annotations do not: the endpoint (POST /v1/acg) and the 50-credit Tier 3 cost, which is decision-relevant for an agent managing budget. It says nothing further about result size or line output, but the output schema covers that.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One substantive sentence, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by compact bracketed metadata (group, endpoint, required params, cost). No filler and nothing redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 15-parameter calculation tool, the definition says almost nothing about the optional inputs that materially alter the result, nor which chart/coordinate conventions apply. The output schema excusably covers return values, but the description leaves an agent unable to configure the call beyond the bare required four fields.

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 description coverage is only 33% across 15 parameters, so the description carries the burden of compensation and does not meet it. It merely repeats the four required fields already declared in the schema and never mentions the impactful optional inputs (zodiacType, houseSystem, ayanamsa, timezone/timezoneOffset) that change the computed lines.

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 verb and resource ('Calculate A*C*G lines for all planets') and glosses what those lines are, so the agent knows exactly what is produced. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as astroway_geo_acg_line_report, astroway_geo_solar_acg, or astroway_geo_acg_best_places, which all operate in the same A*C*G space.

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 statement of when to choose this tool over the other geo/ACG siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given. The cost line ('50 credits, Tier 3') hints at a budget consideration but is not usage guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All AstroWay Core astrology tools Inspect

Try in Browser