AstroWay Numerology

Personal Year (kabbalistic-strict)

astroway_numerology_kabbalistic_strict_personal_year

Read-onlyIdempotent

Calculate the Personal Year number for a given calendar year: the 9-year cycle of personal evolution. Numerology: Kabbalistic (Mathers strict) system.

[Group: Numerology: Kabbalistic (Mathers strict)] [Endpoint: POST /v1/numerology/kabbalistic-strict/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

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds cost (10 credits, Tier 1) and required inputs, but does not disclose error behavior, rate limits, or return format beyond what the output schema provides.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and clear. Bracketed metadata (group, endpoint, required, cost) is brief and scannable, though some of it duplicates schema or annotation data. No unnecessary prose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover safety. However, the description omits usage guidance versus sibling systems and does not explain the optional year, fields, or precision parameters, leaving gaps for a 5-parameter tool.

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 coverage is 60%: year, fields, and precision have schema descriptions, while date and name do not. The description only repeats that name and date are required, adding no meaning beyond the schema's required array, and it does not explain the optional year, fields, or precision parameters.

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'), and system ('Kabbalistic (Mathers strict)'). The system name distinguishes it from the many sibling numerology variants (Chaldean, Pythagorean, Vedic, and non-strict Kabbalistic).

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 alternatives such as astroway_numerology_kabbalistic_personal_year or astroway_numerology_pythagorean_personal_year. It only lists required parameters and cost, leaving selection to inference.

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?