AstroWay Numerology

Personal Year (kabbalistic-strict)

astroway_numks_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)] [Cost: 10 credits (Tier 1)]

(Cursor-friendly alias for astroway_numerology_kabbalistic_strict_personal_year.)

Input Schema

TableJSON 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

TableJSON 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

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful operational context the annotations lack: "[Cost: 10 credits (Tier 1)]" and the group label. It says nothing, however, about computation basis or any rate/credit-consumption caveats beyond the flat cost.

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 is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the whole definition is short with no rambling. The three bracketed metadata lines (group, cost, alias) are boilerplate rather than prose, costing it the top score.

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 needn't be described, and annotations plus the cost line cover the operational basics. Still, for a tool with two undocumented required inputs, the description should say what `name`/`date` represent; that gap leaves it only minimally viable.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 60%: `year`, `fields`, and `precision` are documented in the schema, but the two required parameters `name` and `date` have no description anywhere. The body adds only the phrase "for a given calendar year," which loosely gestures at `year` — it never clarifies that `name` is the subject's name or `date` the birth date.

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+resource ("Calculate the Personal Year number for a given calendar year") and scopes it with "9-year cycle of personal evolution." It also names the system variant ("Kabbalistic (Mathers strict)"), which is the primary axis separating it from the pythagorean/chaldean/vedic personal_year siblings. It does not explain what distinguishes this variant from its own canonical twin, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The only routing hint is the parenthetical that this is a "Cursor-friendly alias for astroway_numerology_kabbalistic_strict_personal_year," which tells the agent the two are interchangeable but not when to pick this system over the many other personal_year tools.

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?