AstroNest — Vedic Astrology & Ephemeris

Auspicious windows (muhūrta) in a date range

find_muhurta

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when the user asks for an auspicious date or time (muhūrta) to do something, such as a wedding, launch, move or purchase, within a date range at a given place. Scans each day in the range and ranks windows for the subject. The pañcāṅga is computed for eventPlace, never defaulted to the birthplace. Cost: 10 credits per call (only successful calls are charged; a sandbox key is free and returns a fixed sample). Deterministic: the same input always gives the same answer. Example arguments: {"subject":{"date":"1990-05-12","time":"14:35","timezone":"Asia/Kolkata","latitude":28.6139,"longitude":77.209},"eventPlace":{"latitude":19.076,"longitude":72.8777,"timezone":"Asia/Kolkata","label":"Mumbai"},"freeText":"signing a lease","rangeStart":"2026-11-01","rangeEnd":"2026-11-15"}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`topN`	No	How many ranked windows to return. Default 5.
`eventId`	No	Event type identifier, if known.
`subject`	Yes	Birth data of the person the event is for; windows are ranked against their chart.
`freeText`	No	The event described in words, when there is no eventId.
`rangeEnd`	Yes	Last date to search, YYYY-MM-DD.
`timeOfDay`	No	Local time (HH:MM) at which each day is evaluated. Default: local sunrise.
`eventPlace`	Yes	Where the event will happen: latitude, longitude and IANA timezone. The pañcāṅga is computed here, never at the birthplace.
`rangeStart`	Yes	First date to search, YYYY-MM-DD.
`subjectName`	No	Optional name of the subject, used only in the response text.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Goes well beyond the read-only annotations by disclosing cost (10 credits, only successful calls charged, sandbox free), determinism, and the critical rule that the pañcāṅga is computed at eventPlace and never the birthplace. It doesn't state output shape or ranking criteria, but the output schema exists to cover returns.

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?

Five focused lines with the trigger front-loaded, then mechanism, cost, determinism, and an example. The example arguments line is long but valuable for a 9-parameter nested-object tool; nothing is truly wasted.

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?

The tool has a rich nested schema and an output schema, so the description needn't explain returns. It covers the trigger, mechanism, cost, and the eventPlace-vs-birthplace distinction, which are the highest-risk ambiguities. Slightly more on ranking/selection versus siblings would round it out.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds the non-obvious semantic rule that eventPlace drives pañcāṅga computation rather than birthplace, but otherwise does not add format or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description states a specific verb (scans/ranks) and resource (auspicious windows/muhūrta) with concrete trigger scenarios (wedding, launch, move, purchase). It clearly distinguishes itself from generic timing siblings like resolve_timing or get_venture_timing by naming the muhūrta concept and pañcāṅga basis.

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?

It explicitly states the trigger: when the user asks for an auspicious date/time for an event within a date range at a place. It doesn't name an alternative or exclusion (e.g. versus resolve_timing), so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All AstroNest — Vedic Astrology & Ephemeris tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.