AstroWay Vedic astrology

Porutham: South Indian 10 factors

astroway_vedic_compatibility_porutham

Read-onlyIdempotent

South Indian ten-factor Porutham (Dasa Porutham): Dinam, Ganam, Mahendram, Stree Deergham, Yoni, Rasi, Rasi Adhipathi, Vasiyam, Rajju, Vedhai. chart1 is the groom, chart2 the bride; counts run from the bride's star to the groom's. Each factor returns verdict (uttamam, madhyamam, adhamam), score (1, 0.5, 0), the rule, its source and basis (classical or manual). Rajju and Vedhai are essential. school: tamil (default) or kerala, which adds Papasamyam.

[Group: Vedic] [Endpoint: POST /v1/vedic/compatibility/porutham] [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_porutham"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`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.
`school`	No	Porutham school. tamil (default) or kerala; they differ on Dinam, Stree Deergham, Rasi and on which factors are essential.
`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
`max`	No
`score`	No
`method`	No
`passed`	No
`school`	No
`factors`	No
`verdict`	No
`verdictRule`	No
`essentialFailed`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the lower bar applies; the description still adds orientation semantics and discloses the per-factor return shape (verdict uttamam/madhyamam/adhamam, score 1/0.5/0, rule, source, classical-vs-manual basis). It also flags Rajju and Vedhai as essential and that kerala adds Papasamyam, which is behavioural context beyond the annotations.

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 technique and factor list are front-loaded, and the orientation and school sentences each carry distinct information. The ten-name enumeration is long but earns its place as the definition of the technique. A short 'use this instead of X' clause is the only thing missing for a 5.

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 needn't explain the response, yet it still summarises per-factor fields and the essential-factor rule. Combined with chart orientation and school behaviour, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly; only sibling routing is absent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

At 60% schema coverage, the description carries real weight: it disambiguates the two chart parameters (groom vs bride, counting from the bride's star) and explains that the tamil/kerala school differ on Dinam, Stree Deergham, Rasi and on which factors are essential — details the schema only gestures at. It does not touch fields or precision, which the schema already documents.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the specific technique (South Indian ten-factor Dasa Porutham) and enumerates all ten factors, so an agent can tell it apart from ashtakoot, dashakoota, and the single-factor siblings like porutham_rajju or porutham_vedha. The verb-and-resource pairing (compute Porutham from two charts) is unambiguous.

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 gives the grooming rule (chart1 groom, chart2 bride) and notes the tamil/kerala school choice, but never states when to pick this over the sibling dashakoota, ashtakoot, or full compatibility tools, nor when the single-factor porutham tools suffice. Usage is implied by 'ten-factor' rather than stated.

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?