AstroWay Numerology

Personal Year (pythagorean)

astroway_numerology_pythagorean_personal_year

Read-onlyIdempotent

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

[Group: Numerology: Pythagorean] [Endpoint: POST /v1/numerology/pythagorean/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

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-annotated context: the endpoint and the cost (10 credits, Tier 1). It says nothing further about return behavior, but an output schema exists to carry that burden.

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?

One compact front-loaded sentence carries the core purpose, followed by tidy bracketed metadata (group, endpoint, requirements, cost). No filler sentences, though the bracket block is slightly noisy against four structured fields.

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 and full annotations present, the description need not explain return values or safety. It supplies endpoint, required params and cost, which is close to complete for a single-value calculation tool; only usage guidance 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 60%, with 'year', 'fields' and 'precision' already documented in the schema. The description only restates the required set ('name, date') and adds no syntax, format, or meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Calculate'), resource ('Personal Year number'), scope ('for a given calendar year') and system ('Pythagorean'), which distinguishes it from the Chaldean/Kabbalistic/Vedic personal-year siblings. However, it offers no explicit differentiation from the other Pythagorean calculation tools, leaving that routing to the name alone.

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?

The description frames what the number represents ('the 9-year cycle of personal evolution') but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no pointer to alternative tools. The agent must infer context entirely from the name and the 9-year-cycle framing.

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?