Deterministic Korean Saju / BaZi Four Pillars MCP. Day Master, five elements, compatibility.
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 3.6/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one computes an individual's BaZi chart, the other calculates compatibility between two people. No overlap or ambiguity.
Both tools follow a consistent 'bazi_' prefix with snake_case and descriptive nouns ('chart' and 'compatibility'), forming a predictable pattern.
With only 2 tools, the server is narrowly scoped but still provides the core BaZi functionalities. The count is slightly below the typical 3-15 range but suits the focused purpose.
The server covers the essential BaZi operations: chart generation and compatibility calculation. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no detailed interpretation or advance forecasting), but the basic use cases are well-covered.
bazi_chartAInspectCompute a deterministic BaZi (八字) / Korean Saju (사주) Four Pillars chart from a solar birth date: Heavenly Stems, Earthly Branches, Day Master, and five-element distribution. KASI-validated engine, no AI.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| day | Yes | ||
| hour | No | 0–23, or -1 if birth time unknown | |
| year | Yes | 1920–2050 | |
| month | Yes | ||
| gender | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It states the tool is 'deterministic' and 'KASI-validated', giving some insight into computation reliability. However, it does not disclose potential error conditions, authentication needs, or side effects. For a compute-only tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.
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 a single concise sentence that immediately states the purpose and outputs. It is front-loaded with the key action. No unnecessary words, making it efficient for an agent to parse.
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 has no output schema, the description adequately lists the chart components (Stems, Branches, Day Master, distribution). It covers what the agent needs to know about the result. Missing error handling or edge cases, but for a compute tool this is reasonably complete.
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 coverage is only 40%, meaning most parameters (day, month, gender) lack description. The tool description does not add meaning beyond listing the chart components. It does not explain how parameters like 'gender' or 'hour' influence the output, leaving ambiguity for the agent.
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?
Description clearly states the tool computes a deterministic BaZi/Saju chart from solar birth date, listing outputs (Heavenly Stems, Earthly Branches, Day Master, five-element distribution). The name and description distinguish it from the sibling tool 'bazi_compatibility' by focusing on single chart computation.
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 mentions 'KASI-validated engine, no AI' implying reliability but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling 'bazi_compatibility'. There is no guidance on prerequisites or when not to use. The context of a single sibling suggests the alternative is for compatibility, but it's not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
bazi_compatibilityAInspectDeterministic BaZi compatibility score (0–100) and band between two people, from combined five-element balance and Day Master cycle relation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| person_a | Yes | {year,month,day,hour,gender} | |
| person_b | Yes | {year,month,day,hour,gender} |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It states the tool is 'Deterministic', implying no randomness, and explains the underlying logic. However, it does not disclose any side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. For a computation tool, this is acceptable but not comprehensive.
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 a single sentence that conveys the core functionality and output. It is front-loaded with the key information and contains no fluff.
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 description explains the output format (score and band) and the method, which is helpful without an output schema. However, it does not elaborate on input constraints (e.g., valid date ranges) or handle nested object complexity. Overall, it provides adequate but not exhaustive context.
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 100% because each property has a description, but those descriptions are minimal (just field names). The main description adds context about comparing 'two people'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema covers the structure, but the description does not significantly enhance understanding of parameter formats.
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 clearly states the tool calculates a 'Deterministic BaZi compatibility score (0–100) and band' using specific methods ('five-element balance and Day Master cycle relation'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool bazi_chart by focusing on compatibility rather than chart generation.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus bazi_chart or any other alternatives. The description implies use for comparing two people but does not specify prerequisites or scenarios where it should be avoided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!