AstroWay Vedic astrology

Upagrahas: Dhuma to Upaketu, Kala to Gulika, Mandi

astroway_vedic_upagrahas

Read-onlyIdempotent

The upagrahas of BPHS ch. 3. Five from the Sun (st. 61-64): Dhuma (Sun + 133°20'), Vyatipata (360° - Dhuma), Parivesha (Vyatipata + 180°), Indrachapa (360° - Parivesha), Upaketu (Indrachapa + 16°40', one sign behind the Sun). Five that rise in the eight parts of the day or night, counted from the weekday lord by day and from the fifth lord by night (st. 66-70): Kala (Sun's part), Mrityu (Mars), Ardhaprahara (Mercury), Yamaghantaka (Jupiter), Gulika (Saturn), each as the sidereal lagna at the start of its part with the end beside it. Mandi by the ghatika table of the Prasna Marga notes.

[Group: Vedic] [Endpoint: POST /v1/vedic/upagrahas] [Required: date, time, latitude, longitude] [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": {
      "date": "<date>",
      "time": "<time>",
      "latitude": "<latitude>",
      "longitude": "<longitude>"
    },
    "name": "astroway_vedic_upagrahas"
  }
}

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
`day`	No
`sun`	No
`lagna`	No
`mandi`	No
`notes`	No
`method`	No
`sources`	No
`ayanamsa`	No
`sunBased`	No
`timeBased`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds computation detail (e.g., 'each as the sidereal lagna at the start of its part with the end beside it'), which hints at what the response contains. However, it does not disclose return format, auth needs, or rate/credit behavior beyond the '[Cost: 20 credits]' note, so with annotations present a 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description is a single dense paragraph of technical formulas with no headings or front-loaded 'what it does' summary. It is not wasteful in the sense of filler, but the action/purpose is buried behind the definitional detail rather than front-loaded for an agent scanning tool definitions.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return-value explanation is not required, and the formula detail helps an agent understand what is computed. However, for a 15-parameter tool with 33% schema coverage and a large sibling set, the description lacks usage routing and parameter guidance, leaving the agent under-equipped to decide when to call it.

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?

With 15 parameters and only 33% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not. The only parameter-related text is the bracketed '[Required: date, time, latitude, longitude]', which merely restates the schema's required list. No parameter's meaning or constraints (ayanamsa, timezone, houseSystem, precision, fields) are explained in the description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with 'The upagrahas of BPHS ch. 3,' which labels the subject matter but does not state the action (compute/return upagraha positions). The title 'Upagrahas: Dhuma to Upaketu, Kala to Gulika, Mandi' identifies the resource, but the description text itself is a formula rather than a verb+resource statement of what the tool does. An agent can infer the purpose from context but not from a clear statement in the description.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus its many Vedic siblings (e.g., astroway_vedic_kundli, astroway_vedic_nakshatras). The '[Group: Vedic]' tag provides a weak context cue but no when-to-use/when-not-to-use instructions or named alternatives. The description is purely definitional.

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?