Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Astro Agents - verifiable planetary timing data and astrology

by io.github.aidatatools-dev
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Verify a result hash (free)

verify_result_hash
Read-onlyIdempotent

Verify that an astrology result was not altered: recompute the SHA-256 of a 'result' object returned by any tool and compare it with the result_sha256 you hold. Free.

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": {
      "result": "<result>"
    },
    "name": "verify_result_hash"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYesThe 'result' object exactly as a tool returned it.
result_sha256NoThe meta.result_sha256 returned with it (64 hex characters). Omit to only recompute the hash.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
matchesNoWhether it equals the result_sha256 you sent. Absent if you sent none.
result_sha256YesSHA-256 recomputed from the 'result' you sent.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "matches": {
+      "description": "Whether it equals the result_sha256 you sent. Absent if you sent none.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "result_sha256": {
+      "description": "SHA-256 recomputed from the 'result' you sent.",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "result_sha256"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / result / description
      Added value: +"The 'result' object exactly as a tool returned it."
    • addedInput schema / properties / result_sha256 / description
      Added value: +"The meta.result_sha256 returned with it (64 hex characters). Omit to only recompute the hash."
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the operation is a pure recompute-and-compare, and it discloses the cost trait ('Free'). It does not describe mismatch handling, though the output schema exists to carry that.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

One front-loaded sentence carrying purpose, inputs, and the verification semantics, followed by a single-word cost note. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description fully covers the input contract and the meaning of the operation. Only minor gaps remain around how a mismatch is surfaced, which the output schema presumably handles.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the omit-to-only-recompute behavior. The description reinforces that result_sha256 is the value 'you hold' (from meta), which is mildly additive but largely restates the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb+resource ('Verify that an astrology result was not altered') and explains the exact mechanism: recompute the SHA-256 of a 'result' object and compare it to a held result_sha256. This clearly separates it from every sibling tool, which all compute astrology data rather than verify integrity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a clear condition for use ('the result_sha256 you hold') and implicitly scopes it to results returned by any tool in this server. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance (e.g. that it is unnecessary if no hash was retained), but the trigger condition is unambiguous.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Astro Agents - verifiable planetary timing data and astrology toolsInspect
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