AstroWay Vedic astrology

Doshas: KP Pitra

astroway_vedic_doshas_kp_pitra

Read-onlyIdempotent

Pitra dosha (Sun affliction) with KP Sun sub-lord chain.

[Group: Vedic] [Endpoint: POST /v1/vedic/doshas/kp/pitra] [Required: date, time, latitude, longitude] [Cost: 20 credits (Tier 2)]

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`city`	No
`date`	Yes
`name`	No
`time`	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.
`ayanamsa`	No	Sidereal school by name. Lahiri when omitted. Equivalent to ayanamsaId; send either.
`latitude`	Yes
`timezone`	No	IANA zone name such as Europe/Kyiv, or auto to look the zone up from latitude and longitude. The server takes the offset that zone kept at this local date and time, summer time included, and uses it in place of timezoneOffset. A clock time that happened twice takes the first occurrence; one skipped when clocks went forward takes the offset from before the change. Abbreviations such as EST are refused. Before 1970 the tz database is not reliable for every place, so send timezoneOffset when the local clock is known.
`cosmogram`	No
`longitude`	Yes
`precision`	No	Compact mode: round fractional numbers to this many decimals. Longitudes carry 14 by default; 2 is finer than any chart is drawn.
`ayanamsaId`	No
`zodiacType`	No
`houseSystem`	No		P
`timezoneOffset`	No	Hours from UTC at the given moment, not minutes. Fractional zones are hours too: 5.5 for India, 5.75 for Nepal, -3.5 for Newfoundland. Defaults to 0, meaning UTC. Ignored when timezone is sent.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`dosha`	No
`school`	No
`details`	No
`present`	No
`severity`	No
`lagnaSign`	No
`disclaimer`	No
`kpSunChain`	No
`affectedHouses`	No
`contributingPlanets`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context — endpoint, group, and a 20-credit Tier 2 cost — but says nothing about what the analysis returns or any computational caveats.

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?

One content sentence plus a compact bracketed metadata block, front-loaded with the purpose. Nothing is wasted, though the bracket lines are boilerplate rather than tool-specific insight.

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 no explanation, and cost/endpoint are supplied. But for a 15-parameter, niche KP endpoint, the description leaves the meaning of the 'KP Sun sub-lord chain' result and its relationship to the other KP dosha endpoints unexplained.

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 33% across 15 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It merely repeats the four required fields already marked required in the schema and adds no meaning for ayanamsa, houseSystem, zodiacType, cosmogram, city, or name.

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 subject (Pitra dosha / Sun affliction) and method (KP Sun sub-lord chain), which distinguishes it from the Parashara and Lal Kitab Pitra siblings by school. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so the differentiation is implied by the 'KP' qualifier rather than stated.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus astroway_vedic_doshas_kp_full or the other KP dosha tools (kalasarpa, kemadruma, manglik, sade_sati), nor versus the Parashara/Lal Kitab Pitra variants. The only routing aid is the required-parameter list, which 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 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?