Skip to main content
Glama

caelus-mcp

by io.github.heavyblotto

parans

Parans (paranatellonta): co-angular bodies over the 24 hours from a date at a latitude — every pair of bodies simultaneously on one of the four angles (rising, culminating, setting, anti-culminating) within a stated tolerance. The relationship behind Brady's fixed-star parans, computed for the moving bodies; pure positional astronomy over the validated rise/set/transit times. Longitude-independent: latitude alone fixes the geometry, so only lat is needed. Date defaults to now.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
latYesLatitude, north positive
dateNoUTC ISO date-time; the 24-hour window starts here. Omit for now
bodiesNoBodies to consider; default the seven classical planets
outputNo'float' (default) returns the usual floating-point payload. 'canonical' returns integers on a declared grid plus a sha256 digest: stable across machines/browsers/languages, hashable for caching and dedupe, precision-honest, with sign/house/aspects re-derived from the quantized values so displayed numbers and facts always agreefloat
tolerance_minNoParan window in minutes: the two angle crossings must fall within this gap

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 burden. It discloses that the computation is pure positional astronomy over validated rise/set/transit times, is longitude-independent, and that date defaults to now. This provides meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it does not discuss return format details.

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?

The description is four sentences, each dense with useful information. It avoids redundancy and is well-organized, starting with the core definition and then adding scope and defaults. No fluff or repetition.

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?

For a complex astronomical tool with no output schema, the description provides a solid conceptual foundation, covering the underlying relationship, the latitude-only requirement, and the default date. It does not explicitly describe return values, but the output parameter schema partially covers that gap, making the description contextually complete for typical usage.

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 conceptual meaning by explaining the co-angular relationship, the 24-hour window, and the tolerance concept, which deepens understanding of how 'date' and 'tolerance_min' function beyond their schema descriptions.

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 precisely defines the tool as computing co-angular bodies (paranatellonta) over a 24-hour window, specifying the four angles and tolerance. It clearly distinguishes from siblings via the longitude-independent, latitude-only geometry, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 conveys that the tool is for longitude-independent parans and notes date defaults to now, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The usage context is implied but lacks direct exclusions or sibling references.

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