ming-metaphysics-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool covers a distinct metaphysical system (BaZi, Feng Shui, I Ching, QMDJ, ZWDS) plus a combined forecast, with no overlapping purposes.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent 'ming_system_action' pattern in snake_case, e.g., ming_bazi_analyze, ming_iching_cast.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools covering the main systems of Chinese metaphysics, the count is well-scoped and appropriate for the server's purpose.
Completeness5/5
The tool set covers all major Chinese metaphysical systems (BaZi, ZWDS, QMDJ, Feng Shui, I Ching) and includes a combined forecast, leaving no obvious gaps.
Average 3.7/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored. Lowest: 3.1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description should clarify behavioral traits. It states the tool 'computes' and 'returns' data, implying no side effects, but does not explicitly state read-only status, auth requirements, or limitations. The verification claim adds trust but not behavioral transparency.
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 highly concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. Every word adds value: computes, returns specific items, verification.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the complexity of ZWDS, the description outlines key output categories but does not specify output format or structure. Without an output schema, more detail on the return value (e.g., narrative vs. structured data) would improve completeness.
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?
All five parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no extra semantic value. The tool description mentions 'specific question domain' which vaguely relates to the optional focus_palace parameter but does not elaborate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool computes a ZWDS natal chart and lists specific outputs (palace highlights, starred positions, 四化). The mention of verification against 紫微斗數全書 adds credibility. While sibling tool names are diverse, the description does not explicitly contrast with them, but the technical specificity makes its purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling tools. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or complementary use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states it 'runs' the engines, without disclosing behavioral traits like read-only status, side effects, or permissions. Minimal transparency for a complex tool.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and the second sentence adds a crucial usage note. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex tool integrating four engines without an output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what 'integrated Master-tier forecast' includes, nor any behavioral assumptions or expected output structure.
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 high (86%), so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds context about I Ching exclusion but does not significantly enhance parameter meaning. 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 clearly states it runs four engines (BaZi, ZWDS, Feng Shui, QMDJ) and returns an integrated forecast. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly excluding I Ching and directing to ming_iching_cast.
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 provides clear context for when to use (integrated forecast) and explicitly excludes I Ching, directing to a sibling. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this versus individual engine tools like ming_bazi_analyze.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions that casting derives from current date/time by default and that the optional timestamp affects the hour branch. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only (non-destructive) or any limitations. Adequate but not thorough.
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 sentences, gets straight to the point, and front-loads the main purpose. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy.
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?
Given the tool has 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return elements (hexagram, changing lines, etc.) and the default behavior with date/time. It could elaborate on the interpretation output, but overall it provides sufficient context for a divination tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already has good descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value by emphasizing that the question must be genuine and about a real situation, and by explaining how the timestamp's time component affects the analysis. This enhances the schema's information.
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 clearly states the tool casts an I Ching hexagram using the classical nàjiǎ method, and specifies the output includes hexagram, changing lines, transformed hexagram, and interpretation. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like bazi or fengshui.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ming_bazi_analyze or ming_fengshui_flying_stars. The description gives an example of question format but does not explain when I Ching is appropriate compared to other divination systems.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions the use of 'sxtwl solar term library for classical accuracy', adding technical transparency. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is idempotent, safe (read-only), or any error conditions. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.
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?
Two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states purpose and outputs, the second adds technical detail. Information is front-loaded and easy to parse.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description covers the key return values (optimal direction, timing windows, lead star, strategic framing). For a complex divination tool, this provides a good overview. Minor gap: no mention of error handling or edge cases (e.g., invalid date), but overall sufficient for an agent to understand the output.
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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema itself documents the parameters well. The description provides minimal additional meaning beyond the schema, only reiterating that omitted hour returns best hour block. Since schema coverage is high, 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 clearly states the tool computes a Qi Men Dun Jia reading for a specific date and lists specific outputs (optimal direction, best timing windows, lead star, strategic framing). The verb 'Compute' and resource 'reading' are specific, and the tool name 'direction' aligns with the main output, differentiating it from sibling tools that focus on other Ming methods.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when a QMDJ reading is needed for a date, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'ming_bazi_analyze' or 'ming_fengshui_flying_stars'. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the computational outputs but does not disclose behavioral traits such as accuracy assumptions, required expertise, or rate limits.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loading the main purpose. It lists outputs efficiently, though a more structured format (e.g., bullet points) could improve clarity.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description must hint at return format. It lists all major outputs (Kua group, directions, chart, synthesis), which is adequate for an agent to understand the return value, though format details are missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the purpose of each parameter (e.g., year for annual star map, birth_date for Kua calculation), which is beyond the schema's type and format details.
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 explicitly states the tool computes Kua number, directional analysis, and annual Flying Star map, listing specific outputs (Kua group, directions, chart, synthesis). This distinguishes it from siblings like ming_bazi_analyze and ming_qmdj_direction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the listed outputs imply a feng shui context, no direct comparison or exclusion is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the compute behavior, output types, and engine verification. It does not mention destructive actions or permissions, but for a read-only computation tool, the behavioral transparency is adequate and adds value beyond the schema.
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 three sentences (∼50 words), each serving a purpose: stating the main action and outputs, verifying accuracy, and noting a requirement. No redundant or extraneous information.
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 5 parameters (2 required) and no output schema. The description provides high-level output categories and verification context, which is helpful. However, it does not detail the output structure or error handling, so completeness is slightly lacking.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter. It mentions the engine requirement but not parameter-specific details.
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 uses a specific verb 'Compute' with a clear resource 'BaZi chart'. It lists exact outputs and references verification against authoritative sources. Sibling tools are distinct (fengshui, forecast, iching, etc.), so differentiation is clear.
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 states it requires the Ming engine running at MING_API_URL, providing a prerequisite. It does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with siblings, but given the distinct domains of siblings, the usage context is clear and no explicit exclusions are critical.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![ming-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Espivc/ming-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Espivc/ming-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![ming-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Espivc/ming-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Espivc/ming-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Espivc/ming-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server