Skip to main content
Glama

caelus-mcp

by io.github.heavyblotto

chart_signature

A chart's structural signature as plain counts: element, modality, angularity, quadrant, and hemisphere distributions over the bodies; the dominant element, modality, and most-occupied sign; and the classical chart ruler (the ruler of the Ascendant's sign). Counts only, no interpretation — a compact summary for emphasis and comparison. Needs date, lat, lon.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
latYesLatitude, north positive
lonYesLongitude, EAST positive (Americas are negative)
dateYesUTC date-time, ISO 8601, e.g. 1990-06-10T14:30:00Z. Convert local birth time to UTC first.
zodiacNotropical (default) or sidereal:<ayanamsa>tropical
house_systemNoHouse system (default placidus). Case- and spacing-insensitive; valid: placidus, whole_sign, equal, porphyry, koch, regiomontanus, campanus, alcabitius, morinus, meridian, polich_page, vehlow (aliases like "whole sign" also work).placidus

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that output is counts only and requires date, lat, lon, but does not mention auth needs, rate limits, error conditions, or side effects. Adequate but lacks deeper behavioral context.

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?

Three succinct sentences: first enumerates output components, second clarifies no interpretation, third states required params. No filler, front-loaded with key information.

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?

No output schema is provided, so the description should compensate. It lists output categories but lacks details on structure (e.g., format of counts, example). Sufficient for a simple count tool but could be more complete.

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 100%, so the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. It mentions 'Needs date, lat, lon.' but does not elaborate on parameter details. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 description clearly states the tool returns a chart's structural signature as plain counts of specific categories (element, modality, etc.) and distinguishes it from interpretation tools by noting 'no interpretation'. This specificity and differentiation from siblings like 'chart_facts' makes the purpose very clear.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies use for emphasis and comparison via 'Counts only, no interpretation — a compact summary for emphasis and comparison.' However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, and no sibling comparisons are provided.

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

All caelus-mcp toolsInspect
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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a highly specific and well-described purpose. Despite the large number, their functions are clearly distinct—e.g., natal_chart vs current_sky vs composite, or dasha vs firdaria vs profections vs releasing. The detailed descriptions prevent ambiguity.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are consistently in snake_case but vary in style: some are noun phrases (natal_chart, cosmic_weather), some are verb-like (releasing, returns), and some are descriptive (aspect_patterns, find_aspect_dates). There is no strict verb_noun pattern, leading to moderate consistency.

Tool Count4/5

34 tools is high but appropriate for a comprehensive astrology API covering natal, transits, progressions, returns, synastry, time-lord techniques, sky events, and synthetic bodies. Each tool serves a specific niche, so the count feels justified rather than excessive.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface is extremely thorough, covering all major areas of astrology: chart generation, aspects, configurations, dignities, time-lord techniques (multiple systems), synastry, composite, progressions, returns, transits, sky events, rectification, electional, and synthetic bodies. No obvious gaps for the intended domain.

Resources