Birthstar Vedic Astrology MCP

get_strengths

Get Shadbala, Bhava Bala and Ishta/Kashta phala — how strong each planet and house is.

Call this for "which planet is strongest", "is Saturn strong enough", or
"which houses are weak". Shadbala is the six-fold Parasari strength; a
planet meets expectation when `ratio` >= 1.

Read `ratio` (>= 1 means the planet clears its own bar) and `rank_by_ratio`
when saying a planet is strong or weak; the summary's `meets_requirement`
lists every planet that qualifies. Each planet has its own `required_rupa`,
so plain `rank` (absolute `total_rupa`) frequently disagrees: a planet can
clear its own bar and still rank low overall. Use `strongest_by_ratio` /
`weakest_by_ratio` for interpretation; the bare `strongest` / `weakest`
keys are absolute-rupa based and kept only for backward compatibility.

Args:
    chart_id: Handle returned by create_chart.
    detail: "summary" (default) gives totals, both ranks, ratio and
        Ishta/Kashta per planet. "full" adds the six sub-bala breakdowns and
        is several times larger — ask for it only when the components matter.

Ishta phala is benefic capacity, Kashta phala malefic; they are derived
from Shadbala, not independent measurements.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`detail`	No		summary
`chart_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedSep 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it explains the ratio >= 1 interpretation, warns that plain rank (absolute total_rupa) frequently disagrees with rank_by_ratio, flags strongest/weakest as backward-compat keys, and notes that 'full' output is several times larger. It even discloses that Ishta/Kashta are derived from Shadbala rather than independent measurements, preventing a misreading of the data.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but every sentence carries load-bearing information — the ranking pitfall, backward-compat keys, size warning, and derivation note each prevent a distinct misinference. It is front-loaded with purpose and trigger queries, and the Args section is cleanly separated and structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a domain-heavy tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers everything needed to call and interpret it correctly: parameter sourcing, response contents (ratio, rank_by_ratio, meets_requirement, strongest_by_ratio/weakest_by_ratio), metric semantics, and size expectations. The key names are enumerated in prose, which is sufficient in the absence of an output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

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 for both parameters, and it does: chart_id is defined by origin ('Handle returned by create_chart'), and detail enumerates its two values, their output contents, the size tradeoff, and a heuristic for choosing. Both parameters receive semantics the bare schema (type: string) completely lacks.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The opening sentence names a specific resource — 'Shadbala, Bhava Bala and Ishta/Kashta phala' — and the outcome ('how strong each planet and house is') with a specific verb (Get). Among the sibling tools (get_grahas, get_houses, get_ashtakavarga, get_vimsopaka), none measures planet/house strength via the Bala metrics, so the tool is unambiguously distinguishable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit trigger phrasing — "Call this for 'which planet is strongest', 'is Saturn strong enough', or 'which houses are weak'" — which maps user intent directly to this tool. It also instructs when to use 'full' detail ('ask for it only when the components matter'). It does not, however, name sibling tools as alternatives for when NOT to use this tool, so it stops short of full exclusion routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Birthstar Vedic Astrology MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count3/5

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.

Completeness5/5

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.

Resources

Need Help?