RoxyAPI Astrology MCP server

Official

by RoxyAPI

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Remote

Calculate planetary aspects - Aspect finder for any date and time

post_astrology_aspects

Read-only

Calculate major and minor planetary aspects for any date, time, and timezone, including type, exact angle, orb, applying/separating status, and strength. Filter results by planets or aspect types.

Instructions

Calculate all major and minor aspects between planets for any date and time. Finds conjunctions (0°), oppositions (180°), trines (120°), squares (90°), sextiles (60°), and minor aspects. Returns aspect type, exact angle, orb, applying/separating status, and strength (0-100). Filter by specific planets or aspect types. Perfect for aspect tables, transit analysis, and aspect pattern detection. Uses standard Western astrology orbs.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`date`	Yes	Date in YYYY-MM-DD format
`lang`	No	Response language (BCP 47). Supported: en, tr, de, es, hi, pt, fr, ru, zh-Hans, zh-Hant. Defaults to en. Coverage varies by domain, and a field with no translation in the requested language returns English.	en
`time`	Yes	Time in HH:MM:SS format (24-hour)
`compact`	No	Set true for the same data in a compact shape: arrays of same-shaped objects arrive columnar as {"__cols":[names],"__rows":[[values]]}. Lossless, typically 40 to 52 percent fewer tokens.
`planets`	No	Optional: specific bodies to calculate aspects for (defaults to all 14: the 10 classical planets, the lunar nodes, Chiron, and Black Moon Lilith)
`timezone`	Yes	Timezone: an IANA name (e.g. "America/New_York", "Europe/London", or `cities[0].timezone` from /location/search) or decimal hours from UTC (e.g. -5 for EST, 5.5 for IST). An IANA name is resolved to the offset in force at the given date and time.
`aspectTypes`	No	Optional: specific aspect types to find (defaults to all 9)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`date`	Yes
`time`	Yes
`aspects`	Yes
`summary`	Yes
`patterns`	No
`timezone`	Yes
`aspectsFound`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.1.2Oct 5, 2026

changedInput schema / examples

Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "date": "1990-07-15",
-    "time": "14:30:00",
-    "timezone": -5
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "date": "1990-07-15",
+    "time": "14:30:00",
+    "timezone": "America/New_York"
+  }
+]

changedInput schema / properties / timezone / example

Previous value: --5New value: +"America/New_York"

First observedv0.1.0Oct 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the read-only safety profile, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real behavioral context: standard Western astrology orbs, returned fields (aspect type, exact angle, orb, applying/separating, strength 0-100), and default coverage of all planets/aspect types.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then return fields, then filtering, then use cases. Dense but every sentence carries information; the final 'Perfect for...' sentence is the weakest and partly redundant.

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?

With annotations, a fully documented schema, and an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values in depth. It still adds orb conventions and default scoping, leaving little an agent needs beyond the structured fields.

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 schema already documents every parameter including defaults (all 14 bodies, all 9 aspects). The description's 'filter by specific planets or aspect types' adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: calculates major and minor aspects between planets for a date/time, and enumerates the aspect types returned. It is clearly a natal-moment aspect calculator, though it never names the closely related siblings (post_astrology_transit_aspects, post_astrology_aspect_patterns) to draw the boundary.

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?

Usage is only implied via 'Perfect for aspect tables, transit analysis, and aspect pattern detection,' which actually points toward sibling tools rather than distinguishing this one. No explicit when-to-use/when-not or alternative routing is given.

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

Deploy Server