Get the birth panchanga (the five limbs of the Vedic calendar).
Returns tithi (lunar day + paksha), vara (weekday), nakshatra, yoga, and karana at the moment of birth, plus the lunar month and season.
| 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 provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does state that the tool 'Returns' a defined set of derived values, which communicates a read-only retrieval; but it does not mention prerequisites such as the chart having valid birth data, error behavior, or other caveats.
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?
Two short sentences front-load the definition and then enumerate the returned data. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.
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?
The return value is well specified even without an output schema, and the tool is simple. Still, for an unannotated tool, the description leaves usage guidance and parameter grounding to inference, so it is adequate but not comprehensive.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description ideally should explain that chart_id identifies the birth chart for which the panchanga is computed. It never mentions chart_id explicitly, but the single parameter's name is fairly self-explanatory and 'birth panchanga' implies that the tool operates on a chart.
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-resource pair ('Get the birth panchanga') and then enumerates the exact returned limbs: tithi, vara, nakshatra, yoga, and karana, plus lunar month and season. This makes it clearly distinct from sibling tools like calculate_birth_star or get_yogas, which cover only part of that data.
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 phrase 'birth panchanga' and 'at the moment of birth' imply the intended use: an agent needing the five Vedic calendar limbs for a chart. However, the description never explicitly says when to prefer this over siblings such as calculate_birth_star or get_yogas, nor does it state alternatives or 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.