AstroWay Tarot

Lenormand: Pair Combination

astroway_tarot_lenormand_combination

Read-onlyIdempotent

Reads two Lenormand cards as a pair: the first is the subject, the second describes it, so order matters. Returns the reading, the reading in the other order and the combined tone. Composed from per-card phrases we wrote, not a copied pair table.

[Group: Tarot: Lenormand] [Endpoint: POST /v1/tarot/lenormand/combination] [Required: cards] [Cost: 10 credits (Tier 1)]

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "cards": "<cards>"
    },
    "name": "astroway_tarot_lenormand_combination"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`cards`	Yes	Two Lenormand slugs in reading order, e.g. ["heart", "ring"].
`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
`rule`	No
`tone`	No
`basis`	No
`first`	No
`second`	No
`reading`	No
`readingReversedOrder`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the description earns credit for the extra content: order-sensitivity, the fact that both orderings plus a combined tone are returned, and the provenance note that pair phrasing is derived per-card rather than from a copied table. The cost tier is also surfaced in the metadata block, which is genuinely useful for a paid endpoint.

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 reading semantics are front-loaded in the first sentence and the return shape follows immediately; the group/endpoint/required/cost block is compact and skimmable. The provenance sentence is the only slightly self-referential line, but it conveys a real trust signal about data origin.

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 present, the description need not detail return values, and it still summarizes them efficiently for a simple two-input reading tool. The only gap is that it never points the agent to the canonical slug source (astroway_tarot_lenormand_cards), so a caller must infer valid card names from the single example.

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 100%, including the example ["heart", "ring"], so the description's statement that order matters largely restates the schema's "in reading order". The fields and precision parameters (chart-oriented boilerplate) are not addressed in the description, but the schema documents them adequately, making baseline 3 appropriate.

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 and resource ("Reads two Lenormand cards as a pair") and immediately explains the order semantics, which is exactly what distinguishes this from the sibling draw tools such as draw_three_card or draw_line_of_five. An agent can tell what this produces 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance: nothing says to pick this over astroway_tarot_lenormand_cards (single-card lookup), draw_three_card, or draw_custom when the user wants a two-card interpretation. The use case is only implied by the word "pair".

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

All AstroWay Tarot 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?