Calculate 36-point Ashta-Kuta Guna Milan compatibility between two charts.
Evaluates all 8 classical Parashari Kutas (Varna, Vashya, Tara, Yoni animal intimacy, Graha Maitri, Gana, Bhakoot, and Nadi) plus a Kuja Dosha (Manglik) mutual cross-audit between Person 1 and Person 2.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chart_id_1 | Yes | ||
| chart_id_2 | 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently details the exact components of the calculation — the 8 classical Kutas and the Kuja Dosha mutual cross-audit — and clarifies the Person 1/Person 2 association. It does not, however, mention the output format, error behavior, or any prerequisites beyond the two chart IDs, which is a minor gap.
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 dense, purposeful sentences. The main action and result are front-loaded, followed by a compact enumeration of the Kutas that adds valuable context without wasting words. No redundant phrasing or restatement of the schema.
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 no output schema, the description explains the computation well but omits any indication of the response structure — for example, whether it returns a total score, per-Kuta breakdown, or a verdict. An agent can call the tool correctly, but might not fully know what to expect in the result. Given the moderate complexity of Ashta-Kuta compatibility, a bit more return-value context would make this 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by stating the calculation is between two charts and by mapping Person 1 and Person 2 to the two inputs. However, it does not clarify whether the IDs must be previously created charts, expected ID formats, or ordering semantics beyond the natural one, leaving some interpretation to the agent.
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 begins with a specific verb 'Calculate' and identifies a precise resource: '36-point Ashta-Kuta Guna Milan compatibility between two charts.' It then enumerates the exact Kutas and the additional Kuja Dosha audit, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_doshas or describe_chart.
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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: whenever compatibility between two charts is needed. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the scope is sufficiently narrow and no other sibling tool addresses two-chart Vedic compatibility, so the usage context is effectively unambiguous.
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.