AstroWay Tarot

RWS: Clarifier Card

astroway_tarot_rider_waite_clarify

Read-onlyIdempotent

Single clarifying card after a primary draw.

[Group: Tarot: Rider-Waite-Smith] [Endpoint: POST /v1/tarot/rider-waite/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

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds cost (10 credits, Tier 1) and the endpoint, which is useful operational context, but says nothing about output format, determinism of the seed, or whether the clarifier relates to a supplied question. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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-loaded one-line purpose followed by compact bracketed metadata (group, endpoint, cost). No filler prose and nothing is buried. The bracketed blocks are a bit boilerplate but do not bloat the description.

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 need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. What is missing is routing among the many tarot siblings and any guidance on the undocumented parameters (question, seed, allowReversed), leaving the definition minimally adequate for a 6-param tool.

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 only 50%: seed, question and allowReversed have no schema descriptions, and the description adds no parameter guidance whatsoever. Even the covered params (art, fields, precision) get no elaboration in the description. 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 a concrete resource and role: a single clarifying card drawn after a primary draw. An agent can tell it is a draw-type operation on the Rider-Waite deck. It does not, however, name or distinguish itself from closely related siblings such as astroway_tarot_rider_waite_draw_single or astroway_tarot_marseille_clarify.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"after a primary draw" implies the usage context (sequencing relative to a prior reading), which is genuinely useful. But there is no explicit when-not, no stated alternative (e.g., draw_single for a fresh draw, marseille_clarify for the Marseille deck), and no prerequisite that a primary question/context should be supplied.

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?