Skip to main content
Glama
Dinesh-Gahlot

mcp-indian-astrology

divine_get_sarvashtakavarga

Read-onlyIdempotent

Calculate the combined Ashtakvarga strength for each zodiac sign in a birth chart. Use it to assess overall sign strength for accurate transit predictions.

Instructions

Get Sarvashtakavarga (combined Ashtakvarga) for a specific chart.

The sum of all individual Ashtakvarga tables, showing overall strength of each sign. Key for transit predictions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dayYesBirth day (e.g., '24')
lanNoLanguage codeen
latYesLatitude (e.g., '28.7041')
lonYesLongitude (e.g., '77.1025')
minYesBirth minute (e.g., '40')
secNoBirth second0
hourYesBirth hour in 24h format (e.g., '14')
yearYesBirth year (e.g., '1990')
chartYesChart type for Sarvashtakavarga: D1, D9, etc.
monthYesBirth month (e.g., '05')
placeYesBirth place (e.g., 'New Delhi')
tzoneYesTimezone offset (e.g., '5.5')
genderYesGender: 'male' or 'female'
full_nameYesFull name of the person

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.9.1

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds functional meaning—showing overall strength of each sign—but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as response size, chart dependency, or any special limitations. It adds value but not substantial behavioral depth beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is only two short sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and then adds one clarifying definition plus a use case. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or repetition of structured schema details.

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?

For a tool with 14 parameters and a rich output schema, the description is complete enough: it explains what Sarvashtakavarga is, how it relates to Ashtakvarga, and when it matters. It does not enumerate birth-data parameters, but the input schema already documents them fully. The only minor gap is not explicitly naming the individual Ashtakvarga sibling as the alternative.

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%, and every parameter already has an example or explanation. The description only uses the word 'chart' generically and does not add meaning beyond the schema. Since the schema carries the full parameter burden, the baseline of 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 gives a specific verb+resource: 'Get Sarvashtakavarga' for a chart, and immediately clarifies it is the combined Ashtakvarga, i.e., the sum of individual Ashtakvarga tables. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling divine_get_ashtakvarga by semantic content, not just by name.

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?

The description says it is 'Key for transit predictions,' which is a clear use case. It does not explicitly route agents to divine_get_ashtakvarga for individual tables, but the phrasing 'sum of all individual Ashtakvarga tables' implies the boundary. It provides context without formal exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools