AstroWay Tarot

RWS: Yes/No

astroway_tarot_rider_waite_draw_decision

Read-onlyIdempotent

Single-card draw with yes/no/maybe verdict from card affinity.

[Group: Tarot: Rider-Waite-Smith] [Endpoint: POST /v1/tarot/rider-waite/draw/decision] [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
`reason`	No
`spread`	No
`verdict`	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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile needs no restatement. The description adds credit cost (10 credits, Tier 1) and the endpoint, which is genuine operational context, but says nothing about how 'card affinity' is computed or whether seeding makes draws reproducible.

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 substance is front-loaded in a single efficient sentence, followed by clearly delineated bracketed metadata lines for group, endpoint, and cost. Nothing is padded, though the bracketed block is boilerplate rather than tool-specific explanation.

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 described, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for a 6-parameter tool the definition leaves 'card affinity' undefined and does not explain how the question parameter relates to a meaningful verdict.

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%: art, fields, and precision are documented in the schema, while seed, question, and allowReversed are not. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, leaving notably allowReversed (which directly affects the affinity verdict) and the question field unexplained anywhere.

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+resource ('Single-card draw') plus the distinguishing output ('yes/no/maybe verdict from card affinity'), which separates it in effect from astroway_tarot_rider_waite_draw_single. It does not explicitly name that sibling or explain how the decision variant differs beyond the verdict, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Only implied guidance is available: the yes/no/maybe verdict suggests it is for decision questions, but there is no statement of when to choose it over draw_single, draw_three_card, or the Marseille decision tool, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. Cost and endpoint metadata are supplied, but that is 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?