Birthstar Vedic Astrology MCP

calculate_birth_star

Compute just a person's Vedic birth star (nakshatra) and core anchors.

A one-shot shortcut: use this when the birth star is the whole question. If
you expect follow-up questions about the same person's chart, prefer
create_chart, which caches the full chart behind a reusable handle.

Args:
    dob: Date of birth, YYYY-MM-DD (proleptic Gregorian).
    tob: Time of birth, HH:MM or HH:MM:SS, 24-hour.
    tz:  IANA timezone name (e.g. "Asia/Kolkata") or fixed offset "+05:30".
    lat: Latitude in decimal degrees, North positive.
    lon: Longitude in decimal degrees, East positive.
    ayanamsha: Sidereal zero-point. Default lahiri.

Returns the birth star (Moon's nakshatra), its pada and ruling planet, the
Moon sign, the ascendant, and the Sun's nakshatra.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`tz`	Yes
`dob`	Yes
`lat`	Yes
`lon`	Yes
`tob`	Yes
`ayanamsha`	No	lahiri

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedSep 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description provides the behavioral profile: it is a pure compute that returns specific values and is a one-shot shortcut that does not cache. It could go further by stating it makes no persistent changes or by listing error conditions, but it covers the main statefulness concern by directing stateful needs to create_chart.

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?

The text is tightly organized: a scoped purpose statement, two-sentence usage guidance, a bulleted Args list, and a Returns list. No sentence is redundant; every line earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden and succeeds: it defines all inputs, enumerates six explicit return fields, and names the alternative tool for stateful follow-ups. Minor omissions like ayanamsha options are mitigated by the stated default.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, yet the description documents every parameter with formats, examples, and units: dob, tob, tz, lat/lon sign conventions, and ayanamsha default. This exceeds the minimal schema by a wide margin.

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?

Sentence 1 names the verb, resource, and scope: 'Compute just a person's Vedic birth star (nakshatra) and core anchors.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling create_chart by explicitly labeling itself a one-shot shortcut.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives explicit when-to-use: 'use this when the birth star is the whole question,' and when-not-to: 'If you expect follow-up questions about the same person's chart, prefer create_chart, which caches the full chart behind a reusable handle.' This clearly routes an agent between siblings.

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

All Birthstar Vedic Astrology MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Every tool targets a distinct astrological subsystem — positions, houses, aspects, strengths, dashas, transits, yogas, doshas, vargas, karakas, etc. The pairs that could plausibly be confused (calculate_birth_star vs create_chart, get_current_dasha vs get_dasha_periods, get_timeline vs get_transits) are explicitly cross-referenced with guidance on when to use which, so an agent can disambiguate reliably.

Naming Consistency4/5

24 of 30 tools follow a uniform get_X pattern, and the remaining action tools (create_chart, calculate_birth_star, describe_chart, rectify_birth_time) still use verb_noun. Only health_check and server_stats break the pattern as noun-style names, and the different verbs reflect genuinely different actions rather than inconsistency.

Tool Count3/5

30 tools is on the heavy side and exceeds the comfortable range, even though Vedic astrology is a genuinely broad domain with many distinct subsystems. Some tools are meta or adjacent (get_account_status, health_check, server_stats, get_prompt_library, get_numerology) and a couple could arguably be consolidated (get_current_dasha as a mode of get_dasha_periods), but each tool does carve out a distinct purpose.

Completeness5/5

The chart lifecycle is fully covered: create_chart produces a cached handle, describe_chart inventories it, and the get_* readers retrieve every section. Timing (dashas, transits, timeline), strengths (shadbala, vimsopaka), yogas, doshas, vargas, compatibility, rectification, and even meta-concerns (account status, health) are all present with no obvious dead ends or missing operations for a computation-cache domain.

Resources

Need Help?