Calculate Chaldean Name Numerology and Vedic Date of Birth numbers.
Calculates Name Number (compound + root), Birth Number (Mulank), Destiny Number (Bhagyank), ruling planetary archetypes (Swami Grahas), and harmonic resonance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dob | No | ||
| name | 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 behavioral transparency burden. It discloses what is calculated and lists the major result categories, but it does not mention input constraints, expected date format, or behavior when 'dob' is omitted. For a deterministic calculation tool this is acceptable but not deeply transparent.
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 short, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds useful information about what the tool computes. There is no filler or repetition.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description provides a solid list of computed values so an agent can anticipate the result. It is slightly incomplete because it omits operational details like accepted date formats and defaults, but it still covers the core contract well.
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%, so the description must compensate. It indirectly maps 'name' to Name Number and 'dob' to Birth/Destiny Number, adding some semantic meaning. However, it never explicitly describes the 'dob' parameter format, its optionality, or what happens when it is left empty.
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 states a concrete action ('Calculate') and a specific resource ('Chaldean Name Numerology and Vedic Date of Birth numbers'), then enumerates the exact outputs such as Name Number, Birth Number, and Destiny Number. This makes the tool's purpose distinct from the many Vedic-astrology sibling tools that focus on charts, dashas, or houses.
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 clearly implies when to use the tool: whenever a user needs name numerology or Vedic date-of-birth numerology values. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but its unique domain is obvious alongside the astrology-focused siblings, providing clear context without needing exclusions.
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.