Skip to main content
Glama

caelus-mcp

by io.github.heavyblotto

directions

Primary (mundane) directions of the seven traditional planets to the four angles (MC, IC, Ascendant, Descendant), and optionally between the planets themselves. The diurnal rotation carries a body to the angle (or a promissor to a significator); the arc of rotation, converted by a time key (Naibod 0.9856473°/yr by default, or Ptolemy 1°/yr), gives the age of the direction. Returns the directions within max_years, sorted by age, each with its arc, age in years, and UTC date. With include_mundane, also returns the planet-to-planet (promissor → significator) directions. Circumpolar bodies have no Ascendant/Descendant directions. Needs the birth time and place; equatorial, so zodiac is irrelevant.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyNotime key: naibod (0.9856473°/yr, default) or ptolemy (1°/yr)
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.
max_yearsNoonly directions reached within this many years of life (default 90)
include_mundaneNoalso return inter-planetary (promissor → significator) directions (default false)

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: the computational method, time keys, limitation for circumpolar bodies, irrelevance of zodiac, and the structure of the returned list. No contradictions.

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?

The description is informative but slightly verbose (118 words). It front-loads the main purpose and provides necessary details, but a few sentences could be tightened without losing meaning.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the complexity of the tool, 6 parameters, and no output schema, the description thoroughly covers what the tool does, what it returns (sorted list with arc, age, date), and important edge cases (circumpolar bodies, zodiac irrelevance).

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the meaning of parameters in context (e.g., key default, date format, lat/lon conventions, max_years default, include_mundane default) and the overall computation.

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 identifies the tool as computing primary mundane directions of planets to angles and optionally between planets, specifying the method and output. This distinguishes it from other astrological tools in the context, even without explicit sibling differentiation.

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 the tool is for mundane directions but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'progressions' or 'transits'. No direct comparison or exclusion criteria 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