Get the Chara (Jaimini) karakas plus Karakamsa and Swamsa.
The Atmakaraka — the planet at the highest degree in its sign — is the
single most-used significator in Jaimini analysis. Returns the whole ladder
in descending degree order, plus the natural (naisargika) karakas.
Note Rahu's degrees are counted in reverse, so its `effective_degrees` will
differ from its actual position.
| 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 it delivers: it states the return ordering (whole ladder in descending degree order), the inclusion of natural karakas, and the important Rahu reverse-degree caveat affecting effective_degrees. It does not cover errors or auth, but for a read-only get tool this is solid disclosure.
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?
The description is tightly written: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds relevant Jaimini context, and the final note covers a critical edge case. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.
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 astrological lookup with no output schema, the description covers the main return content, ordering, and the Rahu special case. It could explain Karakamsa/Swamsa or the expected chart_id format more, but what is present is enough for invocation.
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?
The input schema has only chart_id and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to compensate, but it never mentions the parameter. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning beyond 'Chart Id' already present in the schema.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the Chara (Jaimini) karakas plus Karakamsa and Swamsa.' It clearly differentiates this from sibling planet/house tools by specifying the Jaimini significator focus and explicitly names the returned components.
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 gives clear context, explaining that the Atmakaraka is the single most-used significator in Jaimini analysis, which signals when an agent would want this tool. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool directly competes with this karaka-specific function.
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.