AstroWay Vedic astrology

Compatibility: Dasha (concurrent Vimshottari)

astroway_vedic_compatibility_dasha

Read-onlyIdempotent

Vimshottari mahadasha and antardasha of both partners for years (1 to 30, default 10) from fromDate, cut into segments where all four lords are constant, with the natural relation of the lords side by side, the mahadasha changes in the window and the share of the window by relation. No verdict.

[Group: Vedic] [Endpoint: POST /v1/vedic/compatibility/dasha] [Required: chart1, chart2] [Cost: 50 credits (Tier 3)]

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "chart1": "<chart1>",
      "chart2": "<chart2>"
    },
    "name": "astroway_vedic_compatibility_dasha"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`years`	No	Length of the window in years, 1 to 30. Default 10.
`chart1`	Yes
`chart2`	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.
`fromDate`	No	Start of the window, YYYY-MM-DD (UTC). Today when omitted.
`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
`method`	No
`system`	No
`window`	No
`summary`	No
`partner1`	No
`partner2`	No
`segments`	No
`mahadashaChanges`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the 50-credit (Tier 3) cost, the 'No verdict' framing, and how the output is segmented by constant lords.

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 core sentence is dense but front-loaded with the essential verb and resource, and the metadata block efficiently conveys group, endpoint, required params, and cost. Some phrasing in the long first sentence is heavy, but little is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it adequately covers scope, cost, and the verdict-free nature. The only minor gap—which chart is bride vs groom—is covered by the nested schema descriptions, so nothing essential is missing.

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 67%, and the description mostly restates what the schema already says (years 1-30 default 10, fromDate as window start). It adds no new meaning about parameters such as chart1/chart2 roles or the compact-mode fields/precision, leaving the schema to carry the load.

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 states a specific computation: Vimshottari mahadasha and antardasha for both partners over a window, segmented where the four lords stay constant, with lord relations and window shares. It is clearly distinct from the many sibling dasha tools, though it does not name a specific sibling alternative.

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?

Usage is only implied by the word 'compatibility' and the partner framing; there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus the single-chart Vimshottari tools or broader compatibility tools like astroway_vedic_compatibility_full. The 'No verdict' note hints at scope but does not route the agent among alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All AstroWay Vedic astrology 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?