Audit classical Vedic doshas: Kuja Dosha (Manglik), Kaal Sarp, Gandanta, Pitre.
Evaluates Mars placements from Lagna, Moon, and Venus with 8 classical cancellation
exceptions, 12 Kaal Sarp variants, Gandanta junctions, and Pitre dosha indicators.
| 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 burden, and it uses that space to disclose the tool's scope and counting behavior: 8 classical cancellation exceptions, 12 Kaal Sarp variants, Gandanta junctions, and Pitre indicators. This tells an agent that results are rule-based evaluations, not just raw planetary positions. It does not disclose output format, pagination, or error behavior, but for a single-chart audit with one required parameter, the disclosed behavior is substantial and useful.
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, each earning its place: the first states the main purpose, the second adds the evaluation anchors and rule counts, and the third lists the dosha categories. No filler, no repetition of the schema, and the most important information is front-loaded.
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 niche read-audit tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior well: what is evaluated, from which reference points, and how many rules. It lacks explicit mention of return shape or error cases, and it does not state prerequisites (e.g., chart must already exist). However, the description is sufficient for an agent to select and safely invoke the tool, which is the standard being evaluated.
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% and the schema only states 'Chart Id', so the description must compensate. It effectively does by explaining that chart_id refers to a Vedic chart whose Mars placements are evaluated from Lagna, Moon, and Venus. Although it does not spell out 'chart_id is required and identifies the chart to audit,' the evaluative context ('Mars placements from Lagna, Moon, and Venus') makes the parameter's role obvious. A single clearly named parameter with strong contextual grounding earns a top score.
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 leads with a strong verb ('Audit') plus the specific resource ('classical Vedic doshas') and enumerates the exact categories examined: Kuja Dosha (Manglik), Kaal Sarp, Gandanta, and Pitre. It also states the key reference points (Lagna, Moon, Venus) and counts of rules (8 cancellations, 12 Kaal Sarp variants), which makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_yogas or get_aspects.
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 implies when to use this tool: when the agent needs a comprehensive dosha audit rather than a general chart overview or a specific astrological factor (e.g., yogas, avasthas, aspects). It does not explicitly name alternatives or give an exclusion rule, but the detailed scope makes the use case clear. Because it never says 'use X instead for Y,' 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.