RoxyAPI Astrology MCP server

Official

by RoxyAPI

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Remote

Ecliptic Crossings - Node passages for a whole year

post_astrology_ecliptic_crossings

Read-only

Find every moment a body crosses the ecliptic plane in a year, returning ascending or descending node passages with exact times in your timezone for eclipse-season and node-based timing.

Instructions

Get every moment a body crosses the plane of the ecliptic during a given year, for the 11 Western bodies that leave it: the Moon and Mercury through Pluto, plus Chiron and Black Moon Lilith. A crossing from south to north is an ascending node passage, north to south a descending one. These are the instants a body sits exactly on the ecliptic rather than merely near it, which is what makes an eclipse possible when a lunar crossing coincides with a New or Full Moon, and what practitioners use for node-based timing. Returns the exact date and time in your timezone with the tropical longitude and sign. The Sun and the lunar nodes are excluded because they lie on the plane by definition and so have no nodes of their own. Essential for eclipse-season work, node timing, and astronomical calendars. Ecliptic crossing API, planetary node passage, ascending and descending nodes. Verified against NASA JPL Horizons.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`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
`year`	Yes	Year to scan for node passages (1551 to 2649).
`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.
`timezone`	No	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 once, at the start of the window, and that offset applies to every time in the response. Crossing dates and times are reported in this zone. Defaults to 0 (UTC).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`year`	Yes
`events`	Yes
`timezone`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 4, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value beyond that by disclosing exclusions (Sun and lunar nodes have no nodes), what is returned (date/time, tropical longitude, sign), and timezone resolution semantics. It does not mention rate limits or pagination behavior, which keeps it short of a 5.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The core explanation is front-loaded and clear, but the trailing sentence 'Ecliptic crossing API, planetary node passage, ascending and descending nodes. Verified against NASA JPL Horizons.' is keyword padding that adds little selection value. Roughly a third of the text is not earning its place.

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 read-only, output-schema-backed query tool, the description covers scope, body set, exclusions, crossing definition, and timezone behavior, so an agent can call it correctly. Only the SEO tail and the absence of any guidance on interpreting 'ascending' vs 'descending' in the response keep it from a 5.

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 all four parameters (year, timezone, lang, compact) are already documented in the schema, including the 1551–2649 range and timezone resolution rule. The description's only added parameter meaning is that crossing times are reported in the caller's timezone, which barely exceeds the schema. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get every moment a body crosses the plane of the ecliptic during a given year') plus the exact body set covered. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like post_astrology_transits or post_astrology_lilith without opening another schema.

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?

Gives concrete use contexts ('Essential for eclipse-season work, node timing, and astronomical calendars') and explains what a crossing physically means. It does not, however, name a sibling tool it should be preferred over or explicitly state exclusions relative to alternatives.

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

Deploy Server