AstroWay Tarot

RWS: Chakra

astroway_tarot_rider_waite_draw_chakra

Read-onlyIdempotent

7-card chakra spread (Root → Crown).

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

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a cost line (10 credits, Tier 1) which is genuinely useful context an agent can't get elsewhere. Beyond that it says nothing about what's produced or how the chakra positions map to output.

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 spread description is a single front-loaded clause; the bracketed group/endpoint/cost lines are terse metadata rather than padded prose. Efficient overall, though the metadata occupies more lines than the actual purpose statement.

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 tarot draw in a very large sibling namespace, the description omits what the chakra positions mean, whether a question is required, and how `seed`/`allowReversed` affect the draw. The cost line is a plus, but the missing usage and parameter context leaves the agent guessing.

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 50%; the undocumented parameters are `seed` and `question` (and the boolean `allowReversed` is only labeled by its name). The description does not explain the `seed` (determinism), `question` (free-text framing), or `allowReversed` (upright-only toggle) semantics, leaving half the surface unexplained despite an output schema existing.

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 spread type and deck ('7-card chakra spread (Root → Crown)') with a group tag for Rider-Waite-Smith. This distinguishes it from other RWS spreads and Lenormand/Marseille variants. It doesn't explicitly name which sibling spreads it competes with, but the spread name and deck are specific enough to be 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?

No when-to-use guidance, no indication of what question types suit a chakra spread vs a celtic cross or three-card spread, and no mention of whether a question input is expected. The endpoint/cost metadata is operational, not usage guidance.

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?