Get the currently-running dasha periods for a cached chart.
Returns the active lord at every nested level (Maha -> Antar -> Pratyantar
-> Sukshma -> Prana) for each dasha system the engine computed, with the
ISO start/end dates of each period.
NOTE: "current" is evaluated against the transit date baked into the chart
when it was computed, not against today's date at call time.
| 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?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the read-style nature, describes the returned nested lord chain and ISO dates, and exposes the non-obvious semantic that 'current' refers to the chart's baked transit date, not today's date at call time. This is meaningful context beyond the name and schema.
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?
Three sentences, all functional: purpose, return shape, and a caveat. The main behavior is front-loaded, and the caveat is placed at the end where it will not obscure the primary description. No word is wasted.
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?
With one parameter and no output schema, the description covers what is needed to call the tool correctly: the input identifier, the output structure, and the critical date semantics. It leaves error and empty-result cases unspecified, but for a simple getter on a cached chart this is not a major gap.
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 so by tying chart_id to 'a cached chart,' clarifying that the identifier must refer to an already-computed chart rather than a raw chart request. The single parameter is otherwise self-explanatory from its name and title.
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 first sentence names a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('currently-running dasha periods'), and qualifier ('for a cached chart'), and the second sentence enumerates the returned nested levels and ISO dates. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_dasha_periods, which would return the full dasha timeline rather than the active slice.
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 makes the intended use clear: call this when you need the current active lords at all nested dasha levels for an already-computed chart. The NOTE adds an important rider about the chart's baked-in transit date. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or give when-not-to-use guidance, so it stops 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.