AstroWay Vedic astrology

Yogas: Raja (royal)

astroway_vedic_yogas_parashara_raja

Read-onlyIdempotent

Raja Yoga detection per BPHS A.36-37: sambandha between kendra-lord (1/4/7/10) and trikona-lord (1/5/9) via 1) conjunction, 2) mutual graha drishti (full Vedic aspects: 7th universal + Mars 4/8, Jupiter 5/9, Saturn 3/10), or 3) strict parivartana (specific pair-swap of houses).

[Group: Vedic] [Endpoint: POST /v1/vedic/yogas/parashara/raja] [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
`yoga`	No
`school`	No
`details`	No
`present`	No
`lagnaSign`	No
`contributingPlanets`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed10 schema fields changedNov 7, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / ayanamsaId / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "number"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

addedInput schema / properties / ayanamsaId / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "number",
+  "null"
+]
```

removedOutput schema / properties / lagnaSign / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "number"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

addedOutput schema / properties / lagnaSign / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "number",
+  "null"
+]
```

removedOutput schema / properties / present / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "boolean"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

addedOutput schema / properties / present / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "boolean",
+  "null"
+]
```

removedOutput schema / properties / school / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

addedOutput schema / properties / school / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```

removedOutput schema / properties / yoga / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

addedOutput schema / properties / yoga / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```

First observedOct 5, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful operational context the annotations cannot carry: the POST endpoint, the four required inputs, and the credit cost (20, Tier 2). It says nothing about result shape or how partial matches are reported, though an output schema exists to cover that.

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 dense definitional sentence front-loads the criteria, followed by consistent bracketed metadata for group, endpoint, required inputs, and cost. Every line carries information; the main cost is that the definitional sentence is packed and could be split for readability.

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?

Return values are covered by the output schema, so the description needn't explain them. However, for a house-based yoga calculation, the absence of any note on how ayanamsa/houseSystem choices affect kendra and trikona determination leaves a meaningful ambiguity in a 15-parameter tool.

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 coverage is only 33%, so the description would need to compensate for the many undocumented parameters (ayanamsaId, zodiacType, houseSystem, cosmogram). Instead it only restates the four required fields already listed in the schema's required array. This is a real gap, but with 15 parameters across a shared astrological input envelope, the omitted ones are largely conventional.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Raja Yoga detection') and pins the purpose to a classical source (BPHS A.36-37) with an explicit definition of the condition it computes. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as astroway_vedic_yogas_jaimini_raja or astroway_vedic_yogas_parashara_full, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from the name.

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?

The description defines what qualifies as a Raja Yoga but never states when an agent should call this tool rather than the Jaimini Raja variant or the parashara_full aggregate. There are no exclusions, no prerequisites, and no alternative routing guidance beyond the fixed cost line.

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?