MysticAPI
Server Details
Human Design & astrology engine: bodygraph, personal-sky SVG, today's sky. JPL ephemeris.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.7/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored. Lowest: 2.8/5.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of astrology/energy work: individual chart, raw ephemeris, numerology, relationship composite, personal sky, and current sky. No two tools overlap in function; descriptions clearly differentiate inputs and outputs.
Names are consistently lowercase with underscores where needed, following a noun-based pattern. While not verb_noun, the style is uniform and predictable (e.g., sky_personal, sky_today).
Six tools is well-scoped for an astrological API, covering core functionalities without bloat. Each tool adds distinct value, and the count is reasonable for agents to manage.
The set covers individual charts, ephemeris, numerology, relationships, and sky visualization. Missing features like transit calculations or progressions are minor gaps but do not severely hinder core workflows.
Available Tools
6 toolsbodygraphAInspect
Compute an Energy Blueprint (Human Design) chart from a UTC birth instant. Returns type, authority, strategy, profile, definition, incarnation cross, channels, defined centers, and conscious/unconscious gate maps, plus a body-graph SVG. Location is NOT needed. Convert local birth time to UTC before calling. Costs 1 call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| day | Yes | ||
| hour | Yes | Hour 0–23 in UTC | |
| year | Yes | 4-digit year (UTC) | |
| month | Yes | ||
| minute | Yes | ||
| second | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Costs 1 call' and returns data, but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or other behavioral traits beyond what is obvious. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose and outputs. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and moderate parameter coverage, the description lists return fields and SVG, plus cost and conversion notes. It could include response structure but is reasonably complete for a computation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33%. The description adds overall context (UTC requirement, location unnecessary) but does not explain individual parameter meanings beyond what the schema provides. Baseline for low coverage is 4, but the description partially compensates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it computes a Human Design chart from a UTC birth instant and lists specific outputs. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings 'sky_personal' and 'sky_today', but its purpose is well-defined.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly instructs to convert local time to UTC before calling and notes that location is not needed. It provides clear context for use but does not mention when not to use or alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
ephemerisAInspect
Raw geocentric ecliptic positions for any instant (UTC): 13 bodies (Sun through Pluto, Chiron, lunar nodes) with longitude and retrograde flags. JPL-validated ephemeris (Meeus + Standish 1992). Costs 1 call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| day | Yes | ||
| hour | Yes | Hour 0–23 in UTC | |
| year | Yes | 4-digit year (UTC) | |
| month | Yes | ||
| minute | Yes | ||
| second | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the ephemeris is 'JPL-validated (Meeus + Standish 1992)' and costs 1 call, but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or requires authentication. This is adequate but not detailed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and adding validation source and cost in the second. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 6 parameters, 13 bodies, and no output schema, the description provides key details: what is returned (positions with longitude and retrograde flags) and validation source. It lacks specifics on output format or units, but is largely complete given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33% (2 of 6 parameters have descriptions). The tool description does not elaborate on parameter meanings beyond stating 'any instant (UTC).' It fails to explain the date/time fields or the optional second parameter. With low coverage, the description should compensate but does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it provides 'raw geocentric ecliptic positions for any instant (UTC): 13 bodies...with longitude and retrograde flags.' It specifies the verb (positions), resource (ephemeris), and scope (13 bodies), distinguishing it from sibling astrology tools like bodygraph or numerology.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage context is implied by the description's specificity to ephemeris data, but no explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., sky_personal, sky_today). The sibling tools are different in nature, so the distinction is clear but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
numerologyAInspect
Numerology profile from a birth date (UTC): Pythagorean life path (master numbers 11/22/33 preserved), birthday number, personal year/month/day cycles, and tarot birth card. Time fields are accepted but only the date matters. Costs 1 call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| day | Yes | ||
| hour | Yes | Hour 0–23 in UTC | |
| year | Yes | 4-digit year (UTC) | |
| month | Yes | ||
| minute | Yes | ||
| second | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses that time fields are accepted but only date matters, and that the tool costs 1 call. Does not mention auth or side effects, but provides enough context for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no unnecessary words. Efficient and structured for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, but description lists all computed values (life path, birthday number, cycles, tarot card) and mentions master numbers preserved. Adequate for most use cases to understand return format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 6 parameters with only 33% description coverage. The description adds important context that time fields are irrelevant, compensating for the schema's lack of detail. However, it doesn't explain individual parameters beyond what's in schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it provides a numerology profile from a birth date, listing specific components (Pythagorean life path, birthday number, personal cycles, tarot birth card). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sky_personal or bodygraph.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description notes that only the date matters and it costs 1 call, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for astrological readings use sky tools). Usage is implied but not fully guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
relationshipCInspect
Composite/connection chart for two people from their UTC birth instants: electromagnetic channels (chemistry), dominance, companionship, and compromise channels, combined definition, and type/authority/profile dynamics. Canonical Energy Blueprint (Human Design) relationship analysis. Costs 1 call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| personA | Yes | ||
| personB | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Mentions costing 1 call, but as no annotations exist, it lacks disclosure of whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, or authentication needs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, concise and to the point, covering the key elements without excess verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (nested objects, no output schema), the description omits essential details like return format, interpretation of channels, and edge cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the parameter structure or add meaning beyond 'UTC birth instants'. Does not help the agent understand how to construct the required objects.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Describes the tool as a composite/connection chart for two people from UTC birth instants, listing specific channels and dynamics. Clearly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on relationship analysis.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage for relationship analysis (compatibility) but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
sky_personalBInspect
Render a personal natal sky as an SVG from a UTC birth instant: each body placed on the wheel, retrogrades marked, fixed stars conjunct natal points lit. Deterministic (same birth → same sky). Convert local birth time to UTC before calling. Returns SVG markup. Costs 1 call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| day | Yes | ||
| hour | Yes | Hour 0–23 in UTC | |
| year | Yes | 4-digit year (UTC) | |
| month | Yes | ||
| minute | Yes | ||
| second | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses determinism ('same birth → same sky') and cost ('Costs 1 call'). However, it omits other behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, error handling, rate limits, or specifics about the returned SVG format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured: it starts with a clear purpose statement, then lists key features, a usage guideline, return type, and cost. However, it is slightly verbose in listing output features ('each body placed on the wheel, retrogrades marked, fixed stars conjunct natal points lit'), but overall efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 parameters (5 required), low schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides some context (UTC conversion, determinism, cost) but lacks guidance on input formatting, timezone handling, error cases, or expected output structure. It is adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33% (only hour and year have descriptions). The tool description does not add meaning to the parameters beyond stating they are for a UTC birth instant. It focuses on output features rather than parameter semantics, so the description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool renders a personal natal sky as an SVG from a UTC birth instant, with specific features like planetary placements, retrogrades, and fixed stars. It distinguishes from siblings by implication (personal vs. today), but does not explicitly name or contrast them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a key usage guideline: 'Convert local birth time to UTC before calling.' However, it does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives like 'sky_today' or 'bodygraph', nor does it provide when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
sky_todayAInspect
Today's universal sky: which planets are retrograde right now, the current moon phase and illumination, geocentric positions for 13 bodies (zodiac sign + Energy Blueprint gate/line), and a 30-day forward scan of retrograde stations and new/full moons. No input. Deterministic astronomy (JPL-validated ephemeris). Costs 1 call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral traits: it is deterministic (JPL-validated), read-only (no side effects), and costs 1 call. It also specifies the output scope but no contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads all output details, and subsequent sentences add efficiency (no input) and trust (deterministic, cost).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the zero parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it lists all output categories, states determinism and cost, and implies the tool's scope relative to siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty). The description adds value by stating 'No input', which is helpful for the agent. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool provides current universal sky information including retrograde planets, moon phase, geocentric positions for 13 bodies, and a 30-day forward scan. It distinguishes itself from siblings 'bodygraph' and 'sky_personal' by being universal and requiring no input.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states 'No input' and mentions cost (1 call), implying it should be used when general sky data is needed without personalization. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, the context makes it clear that 'sky_personal' is for personal charts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!