AstroWay Vedic astrology

Life-area timing: marriage

astroway_vedic_timing_marriage

Read-onlyIdempotent

Marriage windows from the 7th house, its lord and the karakas Venus (classical) and Jupiter (modern), 2nd and 11th supporting; KP group 2, 7, 11. Windows over years (1 to 20, default 5) from fromDate, cut at every Vimshottari period change (level pratyantar by default, or antar) and every Jupiter or Saturn sign change. Each window has score, its components (dasha, transit, kp) and every rule that fired, with basis (classical, modern, kp) and a source key into sources. Double transit (K.N.

[Group: Vedic] [Endpoint: POST /v1/vedic/timing/marriage] [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": {
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "astroway_vedic_timing_marriage"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	Yes	Birth data (time and coordinates required: the houses come from the Lagna) and the span to scan for one life area.
`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
`area`	No
`level`	No
`natal`	No
`houses`	No
`method`	No
`window`	No
`karakas`	No
`sources`	No
`summary`	No
`windows`	No
`kpHouses`	No
`rulesBasis`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, closed-world), and the description adds substantial behavior of its own: windows are cut at every Vimshottari period change and at every Jupiter/Saturn sign change, and each window carries score, components (dasha, transit, kp), fired rules, basis and a source key. It stops short of stating the cost (50 credits, Tier 3) or any latency/output-size expectations for a 20-year scan.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

It is one long dense paragraph that leads with rule scaffolding (houses, karakas, KP group numbers) before stating plainly what the tool produces, and it ends truncated mid-clause ('Double transit (K.N.'), leaving an incomplete thought in the payload.

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 computationally heavy timing tool with an output schema, the description covers how windows are generated, what each window contains, and how the scan span is bounded, which is the right scope. The dangling final clause and the absence of any note on cost or on sibling routing are the only meaningful gaps.

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 years, fromDate, level, minScore and kp are already documented at the field level. The description restates the defaults (pratyantar, 1 to 20 years) without adding syntax or edge-case meaning, so the baseline of 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 a concrete verb-equivalent (derive marriage windows) and a concrete resource (7th house, its lord, Venus/Jupiter karakas, 2nd/11th support, KP group 2/7/11), so the agent knows exactly what is computed. It never distinguishes itself from astroway_vedic_timing_all or from astroway_vedic_muhurat_marriage (electional date-picking rather than timing windows), which is a real source of mis-selection in this sibling set.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to use this rather than the other life-area timing tools or the muhurat tools; the span semantics imply a forecast use case but that is inference. No prerequisites are stated in the description, e.g. that an accurate birth time is required because houses come from the Lagna.

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?