AstroWay Tarot

Marseille: Clarifier

astroway_tarot_marseille_clarify

Read-onlyIdempotent

Single clarifying card.

[Group: Tarot: Marseille] [Endpoint: POST /v1/tarot/marseille/clarify] [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
`type`	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

C2.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is low. The description adds the endpoint and cost (10 credits) context, which is useful, but says nothing about determinism of the draw, how question/seed affect the result, or reversal behavior.

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 terse and front-loaded, with metadata block (group, endpoint, cost) clearly separated. Nothing is wasted, though at three words of actual purpose the brevity tips into under-specification.

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

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 6-parameter, zero-required tool with an output schema, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot tell how to supply question vs seed, when to change allowReversed, or how this relates to draw_single / rider_waite_clarify. Only the cost/endpoint metadata is genuinely additive.

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 50%; art, fields, and precision are documented in-schema, while question, seed, and allowReversed have no schema description. The tool description compensates for none of these gaps - it does not explain what question is for, how seed makes draws reproducible, or what allowReversed does.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Single clarifying card' states the resource (a card) and its role (clarifying) but is telegraphic and does not distinguish it from the many sibling draw tools (astroway_tarot_marseille_draw_single, astroway_tarot_rider_waite_clarify). An agent gets the gist but not why this differs from a single-card draw.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no alternatives named. It never explains that a clarifying card is drawn to resolve ambiguity in a prior reading, nor differentiates it from draw_single or the Rider-Waite clarify sibling.

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?