AstroWay Core astrology

by info.astroway

Overview Discussions Admin

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] [Cost: 50 credits (Tier 3)]

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
`lines`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 5, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld=false, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value with the cost disclosure (50 credits, Tier 3), which matters for a metered tool, but says nothing about output shape or latency.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences plus structured group/cost metadata; nothing is wasted. It is tight, though the brevity is partly what leaves the parameter story untold.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but a 15-parameter astrological calculation with 33% coverage and no guidance on sidereal vs tropical, ayanamsa selection, or date/timezone handling is under-specified 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?

Fifteen parameters with only 33% schema description coverage, and the description mentions none of them. Critical choices such as zodiacType, ayanamsa, timezone vs timezoneOffset, and the compact-mode fields/precision have no guidance beyond terse schema text, and four required birth inputs are never explained.

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) and defines the concept (geodetic map lines where each planet was angular at birth). It is clearly the base ACG computation, but it never distinguishes itself from the many geo_acg_* siblings such as line_report, by_category, or best_places.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance. With eight astroway_geo_acg_* siblings plus geo_geodetic, geo_relocation, and geo_local_space in the same family, an agent gets no help deciding when this raw calculation is preferable to the report/category/zone variants.

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