AstroWay Tarot

Marseille: Interpret

astroway_tarot_marseille_interpret

Read-onlyIdempotent

Resolve list of card slugs into meanings.

[Group: Tarot: Marseille] [Endpoint: POST /v1/tarot/marseille/interpret] [Required: cards] [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.
`cards`	Yes
`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.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cards`	No
`question`	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

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-structured info: the 10-credit Tier 1 cost and the POST endpoint. It does not disclose return shape, but an output schema exists for that.

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?

Front-loads the core action in one sentence, then packs metadata into bracketed tags with zero filler. Efficient and scannable, though the tags are more structural housekeeping than description content.

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?

Output schema covers return values and annotations cover safety, so those gaps are fine. However, for a 5-param tool with only 1 required, the description supplies no usage context and no elaboration on the optional art/fields/precision params, leaving an agent to infer invocation intent from siblings alone.

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 description coverage is 60%. The description clarifies the required 'cards' argument as 'card slugs' (the schema leaves cards undescribed), adding real value, but the other four params (art, fields, question, precision) receive no description-level elaboration beyond what the schema already says.

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 ('Resolve list of card slugs into meanings'), which clearly conveys the operation. Deck variant (Marseille) and the interpret-vs-draw distinction are implied by the title and group tags, but the description does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like tarot_marseille_cards_slug or tarot_rider_waite_interpret.

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?

The only guidance is '[Required: cards]', which states a prerequisite but not when to use this tool versus the many draw_* siblings or the RWS interpret variant. No when-to-use context or exclusions are provided.

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?