Skip to main content
Glama

caelus-mcp

by io.github.heavyblotto

composite

Relationship charts for two people: the midpoint composite (each body and angle is the shorter-arc midpoint of the two natal positions) and the Davison chart (a real chart cast for the midpoint in time and place). Each person needs date+lat+lon.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
aYesPerson A birth data (UTC date, lat, lon)
bYesPerson B birth data (UTC date, lat, lon)
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

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains the tool computes two types of charts (midpoint and Davison) and requires birth data, but does not disclose return format, error handling, or whether it is read-only. Some behavioral insight 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, each sentence is informative and necessary. No redundancy or fluff.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given 4 parameters (with nested objects) and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's inputs and what it computes. However, it could hint at the output structure (e.g., 'returns chart data') to fully compensate for missing output schema. Still, it is mostly complete for a chart tool.

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 baseline 3 is appropriate. The description adds value by explaining that parameters represent birth data for each person and clarifies the chart types, but does not exceed schema detail. It reinforces parameter purpose without adding new semantic depth.

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 it computes relationship composite charts (midpoint and Davison) for two people, with a specific verb 'Relationship charts for two people'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like synastry which is also relationship but different calculation.

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 provides clear context on when to use (for composite charts) and required inputs (date, lat, lon for each person), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like synastry for relationship comparisons.

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