Get metadata and an inventory of what a cached chart contains.
Useful for orienting before drilling in: returns the birth data and config
it was computed with, the top-level sections available in the document, and
how many fields the engine honestly marked as deferred or uncomputable.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chart_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well: it reveals exactly what gets returned (birth data, config, top-level sections, deferred/uncomputable field counts), and the phrase 'honestly marked as deferred or uncomputable' discloses that the engine may be unable to compute some fields — useful behavioral honesty. It implies the chart must already exist since it operates on a 'cached' chart. Error behavior is not covered, but the core traits are transparent.
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 with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence earns its place by adding usage context and return-value detail. Every clause contributes.
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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete: it summarizes the return value constituents and the cached-chart prerequisite. Minor gaps are the absence of error behavior and an explicit safety statement, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is critically missing.
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%, so the description must compensate. It partially does by establishing that chart_id refers to a previously computed 'cached' chart, implying the ID must come from create_chart or similar. But it doesn't specify the ID format, how to obtain it, or what happens with invalid IDs, leaving the single parameter only partially explained.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get metadata and an inventory of what a cached chart contains.' The phrase 'cached chart' distinguishes it from sibling get_* tools that return computed chart slices, and 'orienting before drilling in' clarifies its role as an overview tool. It's clear, though 'metadata and an inventory' is slightly loose about the exact output shape.
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?
'Useful for orienting before drilling in' provides clear contextual guidance — this should be called first before querying specialized endpoints like get_houses or get_grahas. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative siblings or state when NOT to use it, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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.
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.