Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Ancient Echoes MCP

Ancient Echoes MCP

by FlamesCN
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

San Shi Shu Table

divination.preview_sanshishu
Read-only

Previews a San Shi Shu wealth-and-lu label from a user profile or saved chart using raw civil birth data, Lichun year and lunar month indexing, while rejecting direct Four Pillars input.

Instructions

基于当前用户本人资料或其命盘记录，直接使用原始录入民用出生时刻，以精确立春年度尾数 × 农历月查询常见 10×12 财禄标签表；立春前按上一年度，闰月沿用同名月列，农历日期和时辰不参与索引；直接四柱必须拒绝，不补造前世、来世或现实财富结论，不保存记录。

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "subject": "<subject>"
    },
    "name": "divination.preview_sanshishu"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
notesNo
localeNo
subjectYes命主来源严格二选一；直接四柱记录不包含可核验民用出生日期，不能用于三世书财禄表。
questionNo
focus_areaNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond readOnlyHint it discloses the indexing rules (lichun boundary rolls back a year, leap months reuse the same-name column, lunar day and hour are excluded), the refusal behavior for four-pillar input, and the scope limits (no past-life/next-life or real-world wealth claims, no record persistence). These are non-obvious behaviors an agent could not infer from 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The core lookup mechanic is front-loaded in the opening clause, and every following clause adds real information rather than restating the title. It is a single semicolon-chained sentence, which makes it dense and harder to scan than a short structured list would be.

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?

For a tool with a nested oneOf subject object, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description covers the input constraint and the indexing logic well. It still leaves unclear what the returned table looks like and how question/focus_area/locale influence the response, which matters since there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 only 20%, and the description compensates mainly for the subject parameter, explaining that the original civil birth moment must be used and that record_id versus use_profile is a strict either/or. It adds nothing about question, focus_area, notes, or locale, leaving four of five parameters undocumented in both places.

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 concrete verb and resource: look up the 10x12 wealth/lu label table using the lichun year-tail multiplied by lunar month. It also distinguishes this tool's input requirements from sibling chart tools by declaring that a direct four-pillar record must be rejected.

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 clearly states the acceptable subject sources (the current user's own profile or an existing chart record) and an explicit when-not: direct four-pillar records cannot be used. It does not name a sibling alternative for the rejected case, so the routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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