Skip to main content
Glama

caelus-mcp

by io.github.heavyblotto

vargas

Parashari divisional charts (vargas): the sign of each of the seven planets and the Ascendant in the requested D-charts — D1 rasi, D2 hora, D3 drekkana, D9 navamsa, D10 dasamsa, D12 dwadasamsa, D30 trimsamsa. Per point in each chart: the divisional sign and the division number within the rasi. The navamsa (D9) is the most consulted after the rasi. Sidereal; Lahiri by default. Needs the birth time and place for the Ascendant.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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.
zodiacNosidereal ayanamsa (default sidereal:lahiri); these are sidereal techniquessidereal:lahiri
divisionsNosubset of 1/2/3/9/10/12/30 (default all)

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It states the tool is sidereal by default, requires UTC date and location, and returns divisional sign and division number. However, it doesn't disclose potential errors, rate limits, or safety aspects (though it's likely read-only).

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?

Description is 4 sentences, front-loading the main purpose. Every sentence adds essential information: what the tool does, the divisions included, noting the most important one, and the data requirements.

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 no output schema, description hints at return structure (divisional sign and division number per point). It covers inputs, defaults, and purpose. Slightly more detail on response format would improve, but it's sufficient for a tool of this complexity.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by clarifying that lat/lon are needed for Ascendant and explaining the division numbers. It also notes navamsa is most consulted, enriching understanding beyond schema.

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 explicitly states it provides Parashari divisional charts (vargas) showing the sign of each planet and Ascendant in requested D-charts, listing specific divisions (D1, D2, D3, D9, D10, D12, D30). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like natal_chart or dasha.

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 notes that birth time and place are needed for the Ascendant, and that Lahiri ayanamsa is default. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, the context implies when to use this tool for divisional chart analysis.

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