AstroWay Vedic astrology

Dashas: Dwadashottari Pranadasha

astroway_vedic_dashas_dwadashottari_prana

Read-onlyIdempotent

Dwadashottari Pranadasha: the 8 sub-periods of the running period at targetDate, 5 levels deep, split in proportion to the lords' years from the period's own lord. Inside the birth mahadasha the split follows the full period from its notional start: sub-periods that ended before birth are left out and the running one starts at birth.

[Group: Vedic] [Endpoint: POST /v1/vedic/dashas/dwadashottari/prana] [Cost: 20 credits (Tier 2)]

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": {
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "astroway_vedic_dashas_dwadashottari_prana"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	Yes	Birth data for a single natal chart. Required: date (YYYY-MM-DD), time (HH:mm:ss), latitude and longitude in decimal degrees. The short forms lat, lon, lng and tz are rejected with 400 INVALID_FIELD; pass the full names. timezoneOffset is hours from UTC and defaults to 0, meaning UTC; send timezone instead (an IANA name such as Europe/Kyiv, or auto) and the offset for that date is worked out, summer time included. city is a display label only: nothing here geocodes it, so it never stands in for coordinates. houseSystem is a single house-system letter, P by default; a name such as "Placidus" is refused, and the case matters because I and i are two different Sunshine systems.
`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.
`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
`level`	No
`system`	No
`initial`	No
`periods`	No
`ayanamsa`	No
`nakshatra`	No
`currentMaha`	No
`currentAntar`	No
`currentSookshma`	No
`currentPratyantar`	No
`moonSiderealLongitude`	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 this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive call, so the safety bar is low. The description earns credit by disclosing non-obvious computation behavior: the period is split in proportion to the lords' years from the period's own lord, and inside the birth mahadasha sub-periods ending before birth are dropped with the running one starting at birth. It also states the cost tier and endpoint, though it leaves rate-limit/return-shape details to the output schema.

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 definition is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a genuinely useful edge-case rule, then compact bracketed metadata. Nothing is padded, though the second sentence is dense and could be split for readability.

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 and fully described parameters, the description only needs to carry the distinctive logic, which it does: level depth, proportional split, and birth-boundary handling. An agent can call this correctly without additional context.

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 100%, so the body, targetDate, fields, and precision parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description only references `targetDate` in passing and adds no format or edge-case meaning beyond it, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names the specific technique (Dwadashottari Pranadasha), states it returns the 8 sub-periods of the running period at `targetDate` 5 levels deep, and gives the proportional-splitting rule. It identifies the level implicitly through "5 levels deep" but never contrasts with the sibling sookshma/antyantar/pratyantar tools, so an agent must infer the level ordering from the name alone.

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: the description makes clear this is the finest dasha subdivision for a given target date, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the sibling tools (dwadashottari_sookshma, _pratyantar, _antar) or when to pick this level over them.

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?