AstroWay Numerology

Personal Year (chaldean)

astroway_numerology_chaldean_personal_year

Read-onlyIdempotent

Calculate the Personal Year number for a given calendar year: the 9-year cycle of personal evolution. Numerology: Chaldean system.

[Group: Numerology: Chaldean] [Endpoint: POST /v1/numerology/chaldean/personal-year] [Required: name, date] [Cost: 10 credits (Tier 1)]

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`date`	Yes
`name`	Yes
`year`	No	Calendar year to read. Defaults to the current year (UTC).
`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
`date`	No
`name`	No
`system`	No
`personalYear`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 6, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / year / description

Added value: +"Calendar year to read. Defaults to the current year (UTC)."

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "name",
-  "date",
-  "year"
-]New value: +[
+  "name",
+  "date"
+]

First observedOct 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds genuinely useful operational context (10 credits / Tier 1, POST endpoint, required inputs), but says nothing about response shape or the default-year behavior that materially affects results.

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 one-line purpose sentence is front-loaded and waste-free, and the bracketed metadata block is scannable. Slightly verbose for the amount of substance but structurally sound.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description supplies endpoint, cost, required inputs and system variant. The only gap is the absence of cross-system routing guidance, which matters given ~10 indistinguishable personal_year siblings.

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 60% (year, fields, precision documented; name and date only constrained by pattern/length). The description's '[Required: name, date]' merely restates the schema's required array and adds no format or range detail for those two parameters, so it neither compensates for nor improves on the schema.

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 ('Calculate'), resource ('Personal Year number'), input scope ('for a given calendar year') and the semantic meaning ('9-year cycle of personal evolution'). The explicit 'Chaldean system' tag disambiguates it from the many sibling personal_year tools in kabbalistic/pythagorean/vedic/numk/numks/nump variants.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this tool over the near-identical personal_year siblings from other numerological systems, nor any prerequisites beyond the [Required: name, date] block. The tool name and group tag carry all the routing burden.

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

All AstroWay Numerology 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?