AstroWay Tarot

Marseille: Tirage Réduit (Jodorowsky Reduced Cross)

astroway_tarot_marseille_draw_cross

Read-onlyIdempotent

Authentic 5-card cross from Jodorowsky/Costa "The Way of Tarot" + Camoin ArtduTarot: 4 Major Arcana (consultant / external / higher / result) + 5th synthesis card (numerological sum reduced ≤22).

[Group: Tarot: Marseille] [Endpoint: POST /v1/tarot/marseille/draw/cross] [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 behavior. The description adds useful operational context the annotations don't: a 10-credit Tier 1 cost, the POST endpoint, and the ≤22 numerological reduction rule for the synthesis card. It still says nothing about how seed or allowReversed affect the draw, so it does not fully carry the burden.

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 layout description is front-loaded and the metadata tags are compact. The sentence is dense but every clause (positions, synthesis rule, cost, endpoint) earns its place.

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 explained, and annotations cover safety. What remains missing is the most decision-relevant content for this tool family: how it differs from the other Marseille draw spreads and what 'question' is for. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 50%, and the description contributes zero parameter information. Undocumented params like 'seed', 'question' and 'allowReversed' are left for the agent to infer with no help from the prose, which is below the minimum-viable 3.

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 and resource ('5-card cross' draw) and even enumerates the four positions plus the synthesis card, which is more than most draw tools offer. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like draw_celtic_cross or draw_seven_card beyond the spread name and tradition, so it falls 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?

No statement of when to choose this spread over the many sibling Marseille spreads (single, three-card, seven-card, celtic cross, love, career). The Jodorowsky/Costa attribution implies a tradition but gives no routing condition or exclusion.

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?