Skip to main content
Glama

caelus-mcp

by io.github.heavyblotto

sky_events

Sky events in a UTC date range: rise/set/meridian transits (need lat+lon+body), lunar phases (new/quarters/full), solar and lunar eclipses, stations (body turns retrograde/direct; needs body), zodiac degree crossings (needs body + target_lon). Solar eclipses report global circumstances (type, magnitude, gamma) plus the greatest-eclipse location and path width; add lat+lon to also get local circumstances (type seen, magnitude, obscuration, contact times C1-C4). Lunar eclipses report type and magnitude; add lat+lon to learn whether the Moon is above the horizon there. Times to the second vs Swiss Ephemeris (stations to ~1 min: ill-conditioned by nature). Range <= 370 days.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
endYesUTC ISO end date; range <= 370 days
latNoRequired for rise/set/transit
lonNoRequired for rise/set/transit
bodyNoRequired for rise/set/transit/station/crossing
kindsYesEvent kinds to include
startYesUTC ISO start date (convert from local first)
zodiacNoZodiac for 'crossing' longitudestropical
target_lonNoZodiac longitude for 'crossing', degrees

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses time precision ('seconds vs Swiss Ephemeris, stations ~1 min'), and details on eclipse reporting (global vs local circumstances). It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or side effects.

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?

Description is a single dense paragraph, but efficiently packs all necessary information. It front-loads the main purpose and then details requirements. Minor improvement could be structuring with bullet points, but overall concise and informative.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explains what return values to expect for each event kind (e.g., global vs local circumstances for eclipses, horizon info for moon). It covers precision and coordinates needed, making it self-contained for an agent to understand inputs and outputs.

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 significant value beyond schema by explaining parameter dependencies (e.g., lat+lon required for certain kinds), eclipse details, and precision notes. This goes beyond simply restating schema fields.

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?

Description clearly states 'Sky events in a UTC date range' and lists specific event types (rise/set/transit, lunar phases, eclipses, stations, crossings). It explicitly distinguishes each kind's requirements, making the tool's purpose specific and actionable.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Description explains when each event kind is available and what parameters are needed (e.g., 'need lat+lon+body' for rise/set/transit). It also mentions the date range limit (<=370 days). However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or suggest alternatives among siblings.

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