weekly_horoscopeGet the weekly horoscope for a zodiac sign. Returns the prediction text covering the current week.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sign | Yes | Zodiac sign (case-insensitive). One of: aries, taurus, gemini, cancer, leo, virgo, libra, scorpio, sagittarius, capricorn, aquarius, pisces. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "sign": "taurus"
+ },
+ {
+ "sign": "capricorn"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds value beyond annotations by stating that the tool returns 'prediction text covering the current week'. This clarifies the output format and scope. Annotations already indicate a safe, read-only 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?
Two succinct sentences: first states the action, second describes the return. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with the key 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?
Given the low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, rich annotations), the description is complete. It covers purpose, input, and output adequately.
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%, fully describing the 'sign' parameter. The tool description does not add further parameter semantics beyond restating 'zodiac sign'. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 'Get the weekly horoscope for a zodiac sign' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like daily_horoscope and monthly_horoscope by specifying 'weekly'.
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 implies usage for weekly horoscope queries but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this over daily_horoscope or monthly_horoscope. The agent must infer from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.