Human Design API (Human Design Hub)
Server Details
JPL-referenced Human Design charts for AI agents: bodygraph, transit, composite, Penta, DreamRave.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.1/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct type of calculation (bodygraph, composite, dreamrave, penta, transit, location search) with no overlap, making it easy for an agent to select the correct one.
Most tools follow a 'calculate_' pattern, but 'get_transit' and 'search_locations' break the pattern, introducing inconsistency. While the verbs are descriptive, the lack of uniformity may confuse agents.
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for a Human Design calculation API—covering all major chart types and a helper function without superfluous tools.
The tool set covers all primary Human Design calculations (individual, composite, dreamrave, penta, transit) and location lookup. Missing are tools for interpreting or persisting results, but core calculations are complete.
Available Tools
6 toolscalculate_bodygraphCInspect
Calculate a complete Human Design bodygraph (natal chart) for a birth moment.
Plan: Standard or higher · Cost: 1 credit per call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| verbose | No | ||
| birth_datetime | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions cost (1 credit) but does not state whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects. It fails to provide safety or mutation context for a calculation operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: one for purpose and one for plan/cost. It is concise and front-loaded with the main action, but could include more details without becoming verbose. No unnecessary words are present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a Human Design bodygraph and the existence of an output schema, the description adequately states the tool's purpose and cost. However, it lacks prerequisites, error handling, and input formatting guidance. It is partially complete but has gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'birth moment' for birth_datetime but does not describe the format or the 'verbose' boolean. No parameter details beyond the names are provided, leaving the agent uninformed about expected input formats.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Calculate a complete Human Design bodygraph (natal chart) for a birth moment.' It specifies the verb (calculate), resource (bodygraph), and scope (natal chart, birth moment). The tool name itself distinguishes it from siblings like calculate_composite and calculate_dreamrave, though no explicit differentiation is provided.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions 'Plan: Standard or higher · Cost: 1 credit per call,' which provides pricing and plan requirements but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like calculate_composite or get_transit. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
calculate_compositeBInspect
Calculate a two-person composite relationship chart.
Plan: Standard or higher · Cost: 2 credits per call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| verbose | No | ||
| person_a_birth_datetime | Yes | ||
| person_b_birth_datetime | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry full burden. It lacks information on side effects, data retention, or authentication needs beyond plan/credit hints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (two sentences) and front-loaded with purpose. The cost/plan info is useful but could be separate. Still, it's concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description neglects to explain parameters or any contextual details about composite charts. It is insufficient for a 3-parameter tool with no schema descriptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, the description adds no meaning to parameters (verbose, person_a_birth_datetime, person_b_birth_datetime). It fails to clarify expected formats or purpose for verbose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool calculates a two-person composite relationship chart, distinguishing it from siblings like calculate_bodygraph (individual) and calculate_penta (group).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions plan requirements and credit cost, providing context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
calculate_dreamraveBInspect
Calculate a DreamRave sleep and dream chart for a birth moment.
Plan: Standard or higher · Cost: 1 credit per call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| birth_datetime | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is a calculation (non-destructive) and mentions credit cost and plan requirement. It does not address input validation, rate limits, or potential errors, but the cost/plan info adds some transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only two sentences and very concise, with no wasted words. It could be better structured (e.g., using bullet points) but remains efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. The description covers purpose, cost, and plan requirement, making it adequate for basic use. However, it lacks parameter guidance, which is a gap given the 0% schema coverage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'birth_datetime' parameter format, expected values, or constraints. The parameter name alone is insufficient for correct invocation; the agent needs additional guidance that is missing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Calculate' and the resource 'DreamRave sleep and dream chart', and it mentions 'for a birth moment', specifying the input. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'calculate_bodygraph' by naming a different chart type, but does not explicitly contrast them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides implicit usage guidance by noting the required plan ('Standard or higher') and cost ('1 credit per call'), which helps an agent decide when to use it. However, it does not give explicit when-not-to-use conditions or compare with alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
calculate_pentaBInspect
Calculate a group Penta analysis for a team of 3 to 5 people.
Plan: Standard or higher · Cost: 3 credits per call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| verbose | No | ||
| birth_datetimes | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only mentions cost, failing to disclose behavioral traits such as whether the call is destructive, idempotent, or has side effects. For a computation tool, this is minimal but acceptable given the nature.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences, front-loading the core purpose. However, it could be slightly more efficient by integrating plan and cost into the purpose sentence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, reducing the need to explain return values, but the description lacks prerequisites (e.g., birth time format) and error conditions. For a tool with limited parameters, it is adequate but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain that birth_datetimes should contain 3-5 date strings or clarify the format. The verbose parameter is not described at all. The description adds little beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool calculates a 'Penta analysis' for a team of 3-5 people, distinguishing it from sibling tools like calculate_bodygraph (individual) and calculate_composite (different calculation type).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides cost (3 credits) and plan requirement ('Standard or higher') but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_transitBInspect
Calculate the Human Design transit chart for a specific moment in time.
Plan: Basic or higher · Cost: 0.5 credits per call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| transit_datetime | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses plan requirement and cost, which are behavioral traits beyond the schema. However, with no annotations, the description should cover more, such as rate limits or side effects. The cost info adds some value but is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences plus a cost line. No wasted words, though the cost/plan info could be integrated into the main description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With one parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose and cost. It lacks prerequisites or limitations but is minimally adequate for a low-complexity tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description says 'specific moment in time' for the only parameter, but adds no format or constraints. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description could do more to clarify the datetime format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool calculates a Human Design transit chart for a specific time. It distinguishes from sibling tools like calculate_bodygraph or calculate_composite, which handle different chart types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Context like 'Plan: Basic or higher' hints at access level, but no explicit usage conditions or when-not-to-use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_locationsBInspect
Look up a birth city and return coordinates and an IANA timezone.
Plan: Free or higher · Cost: 0.1 credits per call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| country_code | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions the output (coordinates, timezone) and cost, but omits side effects, auth needs, rate limits, or behavior on error. It is somewhat transparent but incomplete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. No redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although an output schema exists (so return values need not be explained), the description lacks parameter explanations, usage guidelines, and behavioral details. With three parameters and no schema descriptions, the tool is under-documented.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify parameters. It only mentions 'birth city' (likely mapping to 'query') but does not explain 'limit' or 'country_code'. The description adds no meaningful parameter understanding beyond the schema's field names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Look up a birth city and return coordinates and an IANA timezone.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the context signals show siblings are unrelated (calculations), so it is well-distinguished.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description only states what the tool does, not when to invoke it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!