AstroWay Numerology

Personal Year (vedic)

astroway_numerology_vedic_personal_year

Read-onlyIdempotent

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

[Group: Numerology: Vedic] [Endpoint: POST /v1/numerology/vedic/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

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful operational context beyond that: the POST endpoint, the explicit required inputs, and the cost (10 credits, Tier 1), which an agent needs for budgeting. It stops short of rate limits or auth requirements, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-sentence purpose, then compact bracketed metadata lines that are scannable rather than prose padding. The tag block is slightly mechanical but each line carries distinct information (group, endpoint, required, cost).

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

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 no explanation, and annotations cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile. Combined with endpoint, required inputs, cost and the "9-year cycle" framing, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly; the only omission is cross-system routing guidance, which is a usage-guidelines issue rather than a completeness gap.

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 carry their own descriptions, while name and date are undocumented in the schema. The description only restates "given calendar year" and the required list, adding no format or semantics beyond the schema (e.g. nothing about date format beyond the pattern). Baseline 3 is right for a partially documented 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") plus a specific resource ("Personal Year number for a given calendar year") and names the system ("Vedic"), which is exactly the axis that separates it from the pythagorean/chaldean/kabbalistic personal_year siblings. An agent can pick this tool out of the ~80-tool list without opening the schema.

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 never says when to choose Vedic over the Pythagorean, Chaldean or Kabbalistic Personal Year variants, nor what input conditions make this the right call. It only lists required parameters and cost, which is metadata rather than usage guidance.

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?