Get sunrise/sunset and the auspicious/inauspicious windows of the BIRTH day.
Rahu kala, Yamaganda, Gulika kala, Abhijit and Brahma muhurta, plus true
sunrise/sunset, day length and whether the birth was by day.
IMPORTANT: these are the windows for the DATE OF BIRTH, not for today. This
tool cannot answer "when is Rahu kala today" — that needs a chart created
for today's date.
| 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, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose the key behavior: it returns birth-day windows, day length, and a day/night indicator. The warning about not answering today's periods is useful behavioral context beyond a bare 'Get'. It does not mention output format or edge cases, but those are not critical for this simple read-style tool.
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?
Four short sentences front-load the purpose, then list the exact contents, then deliver the caveat. Every sentence adds information; the step-by-step progression is efficient and easy to parse.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns, the birth-day scope, and the common misuse case. It is slightly incomplete only in not describing the response shape or the source of chart_id, but these are minor against the explicit content listing.
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 never explicitly defines chart_id, but the phrase 'of the BIRTH day' and the DATE OF BIRTH warning imply chart_id identifies the chart whose birth day should be analyzed. This is adequate for a single obvious parameter, though explicit 'chart_id is the chart to use' would be stronger.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get sunrise/sunset and the auspicious/inauspicious windows of the BIRTH day') and enumerates exactly which windows are returned (Rahu kala, Yamaganda, Gulika kala, Abhijit, Brahma muhurta). The repeated emphasis on 'BIRTH day' vs 'today' distinguishes it from time-oriented siblings like get_panchanga.
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?
Gives an explicit when-not: 'these are the windows for the DATE OF BIRTH, not for today.' It also states the alternative path: answering today's Rahu kala 'needs a chart created for today's date,' preventing an agent from misusing this tool for current-day queries.
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.