AstroWay Divination and esoterica

Hexagram Compatibility

astroway_iching_compatibility

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compares two hexagrams: matching and differing lines, named relations (identical, complement, inverse, nuclear, shared or swapped trigrams), five-phase relations of the lower and of the upper trigrams, and a 0-100 score whose formula is stated in the response (a convention of this API, not a classical measure).

[Group: I Ching (Standalone)] [Endpoint: POST /v1/iching/compatibility] [Required: hexagramA, hexagramB] [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": {
      "hexagramA": "<hexagramA>",
      "hexagramB": "<hexagramB>"
    },
    "name": "astroway_iching_compatibility"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`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.
`hexagramA`	Yes	King Wen number of the first hexagram.
`hexagramB`	Yes	King Wen number of the second hexagram.
`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
`a`	No
`b`	No
`score`	No
`phases`	No
`source`	No
`relations`	No
`scoreRule`	No
`matchingLines`	No
`differingLines`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety burden is lifted. The description still adds real value: the 0-100 score's formula is surfaced in the response, it warns that the score is an API convention rather than a classical measure, and it discloses the cost (10 credits, Tier 1) and endpoint.

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 main sentence front-loads the comparison and its outputs, with the caveat about the score placed immediately after it where it matters most. The bracketed metadata block is compact but adds lines that a strict reading might call padding.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return shape, and it still pre-empts a likely agent question by flagging that the score formula lives in the response. Cost, endpoint, and required inputs are all supplied; only explicit sibling routing is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with hexagramA/hexagramB documented as King Wen numbers 1-64 and the compact-mode params explained inline. The description adds no syntax or interpretation beyond naming the two required inputs, so the schema does all the work.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Compares two hexagrams") and enumerates exactly what the comparison yields: matching/differing lines, named relations, five-phase relations of lower and upper trigrams, and a 0-100 score. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like astroway_iching_lookup_number (single hexagram) or astroway_iching_trigram_analysis.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The purpose implies the use case, and the '[Group: I Ching (Standalone)]' plus required-parameter line give some routing context, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over astroway_iching_reading or astroway_iching_trigram_analysis, and no when-not-to-use guidance.

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

All AstroWay Divination and esoterica 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?