AstroWay Tarot

Lenormand: Three-Card

astroway_tarot_lenormand_draw_three_card

Read-onlyIdempotent

Subject / Situation / Outcome three-card line.

[Group: Tarot: Lenormand] [Endpoint: POST /v1/tarot/lenormand/draw/three-card] [Cost: 10 credits (Tier 1)]

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`art`	No	Card art set, e.g. rws-1909, rws-restored, rws-vector. GET /v1/tarot/decks lists the sets per deck.
`seed`	No
`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.
`question`	No
`precision`	No	Compact mode: round fractional numbers to this many decimals. Longitudes carry 14 by default; 2 is finer than any chart is drawn.
`allowReversed`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`seed`	No
`drawn`	No
`spread`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 6, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / art

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Card art set, e.g. rws-1909, rws-restored, rws-vector. GET /v1/tarot/decks lists the sets per deck.",
+  "maxLength": 40,
+  "type": "string"
+}

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, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context: the billing cost (10 credits, Tier 1) and the HTTP endpoint. It says nothing about randomness/determinism of a seeded draw, which is the main behavioral question for this tool.

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?

Extremely short and front-loaded, with the spread's meaning in the first clause and metadata in bracketed groups. Nothing is redundant, though the brevity is under-specification rather than true efficiency.

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 the cost/endpoint metadata is a plus. But usage routing against ~10 similar spread tools and any parameter semantics are missing, leaving the definition adequate but thin for a paid, seeded draw operation.

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 coverage is only 50%, yet the description explains no parameters at all. seed, question, and allowReversed are undocumented in both the schema and the description, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 the resource (Lenormand three-card line) and the three positional slots (Subject / Situation / Outcome), which lets an agent distinguish it from line_of_five, 9_card_square, and grand_tableau siblings. It does not restate the draw verb explicitly, but the name and spread layout make the purpose unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to choose this spread over the many sibling Lenormand spreads (relationship, daily, line of five, Celtic Cross) or what inputs a caller should supply. The cost line is the only selection-relevant context offered.

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?