Skip to main content
Glama

caelus-mcp

by io.github.heavyblotto

yogas

Vedic yogas (planetary combinations) on the sidereal rasi chart: the five Pancha Mahapurusha yogas (Ruchaka, Bhadra, Hamsa, Malavya, Shasha), Gajakesari, Budha-Aditya, and Chandra-Mangala; whether Kemadruma (the isolated-Moon yoga) is present; the raja yogas (a kendra lord associating with a trikona lord) and dhana (wealth) yogas, each as the lord pair and how they associate (conjunction, aspect, or exchange); and the chart's yogakarakas (a planet ruling both a kendra and a trikona). Sidereal; Lahiri by default. Needs the birth time and place.

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

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of transparency. It discloses that calculations are sidereal (Lahiri by default) and require birth time/place. It lists the yogas computed, providing sufficient behavioral context for a read-only computation tool. 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.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single dense paragraph that lists many yogas. It is moderately concise but could be better structured (e.g., bullet points). Every sentence provides value, but readability could be improved.

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 the complexity of yogas and no output schema, the description names the specific yogas computed and hints at output format (lord pairs and associations). It is fairly complete for a specialized tool, though it could briefly mention the typical return structure.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds some context (sidereal, need birth time/place) but does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides for parameters like lat, lon, date, and zodiac.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it computes Vedic yogas including specific named combinations (Pancha Mahapurusha, Gajakesari, etc.). It distinguishes itself from general chart tools like natal_chart by listing specific yoga types, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all sibling tools.

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 usage by stating 'Needs the birth time and place' and lists required parameters. It gives context about sidereal and default Lahiri, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when you need specific yogas vs. general chart facts).

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