Day Pillar reading from your birth date — BaZi astrology.
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.
Average 3.6/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.
With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion or overlapping purposes. The tool's purpose is clearly delineated as a Day Pillar reading.
The single tool name 'get_day_master_reading' follows a clear get_noun_verb pattern. Since there is only one name, consistency is trivially upheld.
One tool feels thin for a server, even one with a narrow purpose. It is borderline appropriate, but agents may expect additional related readings or complementary operations.
For its stated purpose of providing a light date-based reading, the tool covers all requested areas (personality, career, love, wealth, health) in a single call. No obvious missing functionality within the domain.
get_day_master_readingAInspectDay Pillar reading from a birth date (personality, career, love, wealth, health) based on Chinese metaphysics. Give the birth year/month/day; the service computes the Day Pillar automatically. Use when a user wants a light date-based reading or asks about their personality/fortune from their birth date.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| day | Yes | Birth day (1-31) | |
| lang | No | Output language: en=English, zh=Chinese. Default en | en |
| year | Yes | Birth year (e.g. 1990) | |
| month | Yes | Birth month (1-12) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description conveys that the tool computes the Day Pillar automatically and returns a reading, but it lacks critical behavioral details: no mention of output format, potential limitations (e.g., date range validity), error conditions, or performance characteristics. An agent would not know what to expect in the response beyond a vague 'reading.'
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 and gets to the point quickly. The first sentence states the purpose and scope, the second gives usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, one might argue the phrase 'based on Chinese metaphysics' is slightly redundant given the tool name, but it adds context without being verbose. It is overall efficient.
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 a simple date-based reading with 4 parameters and no output schema. The description is sufficient for a basic agent to know what the tool does and when to use it. However, it lacks important details for execution: what format the output takes, whether the reading is text or structured, how the 'lang' parameter affects output, and any limitations (e.g., dates outside a valid range). Given no output schema and no annotations, a more complete description would help the agent set expectations. It is not severely incomplete 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning each parameter (year, month, day, lang) is described in the schema. The description adds little beyond the schema: it mentions birth year/month/day are needed but does not add additional context such as how the date is used (e.g., does it account for time zones? Does it require a specific calendar?). The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema covers the basics, but no extra semantic value is added.
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 uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('Day Pillar reading') and clearly states the domains covered (personality, career, love, wealth, health). It distinguishes itself by indicating it is a light date-based reading based on Chinese metaphysics, which is specific enough to differentiate from potential sibling tools if they existed.
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 clearly states when to use the tool: 'when a user wants a light date-based reading or asks about their personality/fortune from their birth date.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but with no sibling tools present, this is acceptable. It gives context on the basis (birth date) and that the service computes the Day Pillar automatically, which clarifies the input expectation.
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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!