Skip to main content
Glama

Birthstar Vedic Astrology MCP

by io.github.amarpathak

get_account_status

Check the calling account's plan, remaining chart credits, and what is gated.

Call this BEFORE attempting a tool that might be refused, not after. It is
to subscription limits what describe_chart is to chart sections: the index
you consult to find out what is reachable, so a paywall is something you can
plan around rather than something you discover by hitting it.

`credits_remaining` is the number of chart *computations* left this month —
reading a chart you already created costs nothing, so the count falls only
when new astronomy is calculated. `gated_tools` lists what the current plan
cannot reach, and is empty on a paid plan.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden and exceeds it: it clarifies that credits_remaining counts computations only, that reading existing charts is free, and that gated_tools is empty on paid plans. This gives the agent a precise mental model of the response semantics and side-effect-free nature.

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?

The description is well-structured with a first-sentence definition, a usage directive, and a field-semantics paragraph. The analogy is slightly elaborate but earns its place by reinforcing when to use the tool; no unnecessary repetition.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides everything an agent needs: what it does, when to call it, and the meaning of the key fields it returns. Nothing important is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

There are zero parameters and the schema fully documents this with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter details because none are needed; this is the baseline case for a parameterless tool.

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?

The description states a clear, specific purpose: check the calling account's plan, remaining chart credits, and gated features. It distinguishes itself from generic health/server tools by focusing on account-level subscription state, and the describe_chart analogy clarifies its role as a lookup/index tool.

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?

It gives explicit timing guidance ('Call this BEFORE attempting a tool that might be refused, not after') and explains the planning-oriented use case. It does not name a concrete sibling alternative or specify when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it.

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 toolsInspect
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