bazi-api
Server Details
Deterministic Korean Saju / BaZi Four Pillars MCP. Day Master, five elements, compatibility.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
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.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.8/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools serve completely distinct purposes: one computes an individual's BaZi chart, the other assesses compatibility between two people. There is no ambiguity or overlap.
Both tools follow a consistent 'bazi_' prefix followed by a clear noun describing the operation, maintaining uniformity.
With only 2 tools, the server covers core BaZi functionality but feels minimal for a specialized API. Additional tools like yearly forecasts or pillar analysis would make it more complete.
The tools cover the primary use cases of chart generation and compatibility, but lack other common BaZi operations (e.g., specific pillar analysis, yearly predictions), leaving notable gaps.
Available Tools
2 toolsbazi_chartAInspect
Compute 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 |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool is deterministic and KASI-validated, and lists what it returns. No mention of side effects or rate limits, but for a compute tool this is quite 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 a single sentence that packs necessary information. It is front-loaded with the main action and outputs. Slightly dense due to multiple technical terms, but no wasted words.
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 covers the tool's purpose and main outputs but lacks details on output format, error handling, or behavior when hour is omitted. For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, it is adequate but not thorough.
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% (descriptions for hour and year only). The description does not add meaning to individual parameters beyond the schema, and does not explain the role of gender or day/month. Lacks compensation for low coverage.
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 uses a specific verb ('Compute') and resource ('BaZi chart'), lists key outputs (Heavenly Stems, Earthly Branches, Day Master, five-element distribution), and distinguishes from the sibling tool bazi_compatibility by focusing on 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?
The description implies when to use (when a BaZi chart from solar birth date is needed) and mentions 'no AI' for deterministic results, but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to bazi_compatibility. Some implied context, no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
bazi_compatibilityAInspect
Deterministic 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} |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is deterministic and outlines the computation method (five-element balance, Day Master cycle). However, it does not mention whether it has side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. For a pure computation tool, this is moderate transparency.
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 front-loads the key purpose and method. It contains no redundant information and is efficiently structured.
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 (score 0–100 and band) but does not specify the band values or return structure. Since there is no output schema, the description should compensate. Additionally, the input schema has nested objects but no further detail about the fields. This leaves some gaps in completeness.
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 both parameters have descriptions ({year,month,day,hour,gender}), but these are minimal and only list field names. The tool description adds no further meaning about format, constraints, or defaults beyond what is in the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 computes a deterministic BaZi compatibility score (0–100) and band between two people using five-element balance and Day Master cycle relation. The verb 'deterministic' and the specific resource 'compatibility' differentiate it from the sibling tool 'bazi_chart', which likely generates charts for individuals.
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 explicitly includes 'between two people', which clarifies the tool is for pairwise comparison, not for individual charts. This implies appropriate context versus the sibling bazi_chart. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternate scenarios.
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.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!