Skip to main content
Glama

caelus-mcp

by io.github.heavyblotto

synthetic_positions

Positions of every body in an authored synthetic system at one instant. Three body modes: placement (fixed longitude), periodic (uniform motion), kepler (constant elements). With observer set on the system, positions are geocentric/apparent from that body (outer bodies can show retrograde). Pass t_days for abstract day units, or date (UT ISO) when body epoch values are Julian Days. Returns speed and retrograde per body.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateNoUT instant as ISO 8601; used as t when t_days is omitted
systemYes
t_daysNoTime in the same day units as each body's periodDays/epoch (abstract world frame)

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It discloses three body modes, observer-dependent retrograde, and return fields (speed, retrograde). Missing details on idempotency or side effects, but for a query tool this is sufficient.

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?

A single paragraph with no redundancy. Each sentence adds value: purpose, modes, observer effect, time input, return values. Front-loaded with the key verb and resource.

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 tool with 3 parameters (one nested), no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the primary use cases, time alternatives, return type, and common scenarios like retrograde. Missing error handling or prerequisites, but adequate for the complexity level.

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?

Adds meaning beyond schema: explains the distinction between t_days (abstract day units) and date (UT ISO when epoch is Julian Days), and mentions observer context. Schema coverage is 67%, so description compensates well for the undocumented system parameter.

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?

Clearly states 'Positions of every body in an authored synthetic system at one instant,' which is a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like synthetic_sky_view (visualization) and synthetic_validate (validation).

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?

Explains when to use t_days vs date and the observer effect for geocentric/apparent positions. However, it does not explicitly exclude use cases or suggest alternatives, though the context signals provide sibling names.

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