Sahadeva

Inspect Badhaka structure without supernatural claims

analyze_badhaka

Read-onlyIdempotent

BADHAKA. The obstruction house and its lord for this Lagna's modality, its placement and relationships. Structural only; no supernatural cause is inferred.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`date`	Yes	Birth date YYYY-MM-DD (1800–2050)
`name`	No	Person's name or a label
`time`	Yes	Local birth time HH:MM (24-hour); 6:30 PM is also accepted
`place`	No	Catalogue query or display label when explicit coordinates are supplied
`latitude`	No
`timezone`	No	Required IANA timezone when explicit coordinates are supplied, for example Asia/Kolkata
`longitude`	No
`timezoneOffset`	No	Optional fallback offset; derived from timezone and the requested local date when omitted

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedOct 18, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / date / description
```
Added value: +"Birth date YYYY-MM-DD (1800–2050)"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / date / pattern
```
Added value: +"^\\d{4}-\\d{2}-\\d{2}$"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / name / description
```
Added value: +"Person's name or a label"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / time / description
```
Added value: +"Local birth time HH:MM (24-hour); 6:30 PM is also accepted"
```

Changed1 schema field changedOct 15, 2026

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "name",
-  "date",
-  "time"
-]New value: +[
+  "date",
+  "time"
+]

AddedOct 15, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description's added value is the epistemic constraint that no supernatural causation is inferred — genuinely useful context for a Jyotish tool. It says nothing about output shape, but an output schema exists, so that is not required here.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two short sentences with zero filler and the key concept front-loaded. The leading fragment 'BADHAKA.' duplicates the tool name and adds no information, which is the only waste.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Return values need not be explained since an output schema exists, and the anyOf coordinate/place requirement is documented in the schema. What is missing is disambiguation within a ~90-tool Jyotish suite: nothing tells the agent when this specialized structural analysis is warranted over analyze_house or analyze_special_points.

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

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 75% and the description adds no parameter-level detail beyond an implicit reference to the Lagna's modality, which is derived from the birth date/time/place inputs. With the schema doing most of the work, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific resource — the Badhaka (obstruction) house and its lord, derived from the Lagna's modality, plus its placement and relationships. That is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, differentiate itself from near siblings such as analyze_house or analyze_special_points, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use statement, no prerequisite (birth data or coordinates required via the anyOf), and no alternative named. The closing clause 'Structural only; no supernatural cause is inferred' is an interpretive stance, not routing guidance. An agent gets no help deciding this tool over analyze_house.

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

All Sahadeva tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.