AstroWay Vedic astrology

Porutham: Vedhai

astroway_vedic_compatibility_porutham_vedha

Read-onlyIdempotent

Vedha porutham alone: 12 mutually piercing star pairs plus the Mrigashira-Chitra-Dhanishta triad. Same function as the factor inside /porutham.

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

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. The ten factor tables are the same in both; kerala adds Papasamyam.
`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
`pass`	No
`rule`	No
`basis`	No
`bride`	No
`groom`	No
`score`	No
`detail`	No
`factor`	No
`method`	No
`school`	No
`source`	No
`verdict`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 11, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / school / description

Previous value: -"Porutham school. tamil (default) or kerala; they differ on Dinam, Stree Deergham, Rasi and on which factors are essential."New value: +"Porutham school. tamil (default) or kerala. The ten factor tables are the same in both; kerala adds Papasamyam."

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 this as a read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive call, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the 50-credit Tier 3 cost, the POST endpoint, and the exact factor being computed. It does not discuss failure modes (e.g. what happens with missing birth data), but with output schema and annotations present the bar is lower.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the one-sentence purpose, followed by compact bracketed metadata lines for group, endpoint, required params, and cost. Every line carries either selection or invocation value, and there is no filler prose.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a two-chart read-only computation with a documented output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies what an agent needs to choose it: the factor computed, the relationship to the parent porutham tool, and the credit cost. The only material omission is the effect of the school parameter, which is covered in the schema instead.

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 description coverage is 60%, and the description only restates that chart1 and chart2 are required — information already present in the schema's required array. The semantically important detail (chart1 is the bride, counted from; chart2 is the groom, counted to) and the school choice between tamil and kerala are documented in the schema, not the description, so the description adds little parameter meaning.

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 resource and scope: the Vedha porutham factor alone, defined as 12 mutually piercing star pairs plus the Mrigashira-Chitra-Dhanishta triad. The clause 'Same function as the factor inside /porutham' lets an agent distinguish this from the composite porutham sibling, though it does not name the other single-factor siblings (rajju, mahendra, stree_deergha) that a caller might confuse it with.

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?

The word 'alone' plus the reference to the factor inside /porutham implies the split: use this for a single factor, use the parent tool for the full set. The 50-credit (Tier 3) cost line supports a cost/benefit decision. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not statement and no comparison to the other single-factor siblings.

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?