AstroWay Vedic astrology

KP: Planet cuspal positions

astroway_vedic_kp_planet_cuspal_position

Read-onlyIdempotent

For each planet: sidereal longitude + KP chain (sign/star/sub/sub-sub) + Placidus house occupied. Convenience layout for KP analyses.

[Group: Vedic] [Endpoint: POST /v1/vedic/kp/planet-cuspal-position] [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
`lagna`	No
`planets`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 5, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, idempotent, closed-world nature of the call. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the exact endpoint, the four required inputs, and the cost (20 credits, Tier 2), which helps an agent budget the call.

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 output summary is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by compact metadata lines. There is little waste, though the bracketed metadata could be slightly more integrated.

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 not be explained. Annotations cover the safety profile, and the description supplies cost and required inputs. However, it lacks any routing guidance among the numerous KP siblings and does not clarify the many optional parameters, leaving clear gaps for an agent.

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. The description merely repeats the four required parameters already listed in the schema and does not explain the optional parameters (e.g., ayanamsa, fields, precision, timezone), so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 specifies exactly what is returned for each planet: sidereal longitude, the full KP chain (sign/star/sub/sub-sub), and the Placidus house occupied. This distinguishes it from siblings like kp_cusps or kp_sub_lords, though it never explicitly names an alternative tool.

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 phrase 'Convenience layout for KP analyses' implies the tool is meant for KP workflows, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose it over the many other KP siblings (e.g., kp_cusps, kp_sub_lords) or any when-not conditions.

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?