AstroWay Tarot

RWS: Custom Spread

astroway_tarot_rider_waite_draw_custom

Read-onlyIdempotent

Draw 1-15 cards into positions you name (positions) or just a count. Same seeded shuffle as the fixed spreads; card text localized like the other RWS draws.

[Group: Tarot: Rider-Waite-Smith] [Endpoint: POST /v1/tarot/rider-waite/draw/custom] [Cost: 10 credits (Tier 1)]

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "astroway_tarot_rider_waite_draw_custom"
  }
}

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
`count`	No	Number of cards when positions are not named (1 to 15).
`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
`positions`	No	Your own position names, one card each, in order (1 to 15).
`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
`back`	No
`seed`	No
`drawn`	No
`spread`	No
`question`	No
`localized`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, and the description adds real context on top: the seeded shuffle (which explains the idempotency claim) and localized card text, plus the 10-credit Tier 1 cost. It does not clarify what happens if both `positions` and `count` are supplied, but that is a modest gap given the annotation coverage.

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?

Two tight sentences put the primary scoping rule first, followed by the shuffle/localization guarantee; the bracketed group, endpoint, and cost tags are compact. No redundant restatement of the title.

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?

With 8 optional params, an output schema, and full annotations, the description covers the essential call shape. The notable omissions are the interaction between `positions` and `count` when both are given and the purpose of `question`, leaving a real ambiguity for a moderately complex tool.

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 63% and the schema already documents `positions`, `count`, `art`, `fields`, and `precision` in detail. The description restates the positions-vs-count alternation but adds nothing about the undocumented `seed`, `question`, or `allowReversed` params, so it neither compensates for nor adds much beyond the schema.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource — draw 1-15 cards into named `positions` or a bare `count` — and distinguishes the custom variant from the fixed-spread siblings via 'Same seeded shuffle as the fixed spreads'. It stops short of naming a concrete sibling to prefer for preset layouts, so a 4 rather than 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 Guidelines3/5

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

It tells the agent the two ways to size the draw (`positions` or `count`), which is implied usage guidance, but it never says when to choose this over astroway_tarot_rider_waite_draw_three_card or the other fixed spreads. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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?