Skip to main content
Glama
RoxyAPI Astrology MCP server

RoxyAPI Astrology MCP server

Official

Calculate planetary transits - Current transits with natal chart comparison

post_astrology_transits
Read-only

Calculate current or future planetary transits for all 14 celestial bodies and compare them to a natal chart to identify transit-to-natal aspects with orbs and applying or separating status.

Instructions

Calculate current or future planetary transits (positions of all bodies now). Optionally compare transits to natal chart to find transit-to-natal aspects. Returns all 14 celestial bodies (the 10 classical planets, the lunar nodes, Chiron, and Black Moon Lilith) with signs, degrees, and speeds. When natal chart provided, includes transit aspects (transiting Sun conjunct natal Mars, etc.) with orbs and applying/separating status. Perfect for daily transit forecasts, aspect alerts, and personalized transit reports.

Example tool call

This call uses example arguments supplied in the tool’s input schema.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "post_astrology_transits"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateNoTransit date in YYYY-MM-DD format (defaults to current date)
langNoResponse 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
timeNoTransit time in HH:MM:SS format (defaults to current time)
compactNoSet 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.
nodeTypeNoLunar node convention. "mean" is the smoothed average node, which always moves retrograde; "true" is the osculating node, which tracks the real perturbed node, oscillates up to about 1.5 degrees either side of the mean on a 173-day cycle, and can briefly turn direct. Neither is more correct and they almost always fall in the same sign. Applies to the North and South Node. True is the osculating node and the default, because it is what most Western chart software reports; mean is the smoothed node preferred by several evolutionary schools, so pass "mean" to match one. Nothing else in the chart changes, and the two agree on the sign except when the node sits within about 1.8 degrees of a cusp. Defaults to "true".true
timezoneNoTransit timezone: decimal hours from UTC OR IANA name (e.g. "America/New_York"). IANA resolved to the DST-correct offset for the transit date. When `date` or `time` is omitted, the current moment is read in this zone, so `transitDate` and `transitTime` come back as its local clock. Defaults to 0 (UTC).
natalChartNoOptional natal chart data to compare transits against

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
summaryNo
timezoneYes
transitDateYes
transitTimeYes
transitAspectsNo
transitPlanetsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.1.5
    • changedInput schema / properties / timezone / description
      Previous value: -"Transit timezone: decimal hours from UTC OR IANA name (e.g. \"America/New_York\"). IANA resolved to the DST-correct offset for the transit date. Defaults to 0 (UTC)."New value: +"Transit timezone: decimal hours from UTC OR IANA name (e.g. \"America/New_York\"). IANA resolved to the DST-correct offset for the transit date. When `date` or `time` is omitted, the current moment is read in this zone, so `transitDate` and `transitTime` come back as its local clock. Defaults to 0 (UTC)."
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.1.2
    • changedInput schema / properties / natalChart / properties / timezone / example
      Previous value: --5New value: +"America/New_York"
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real behavioral context: the exact body set returned (10 classical planets, nodes, Chiron, Lilith), inclusion of speeds, and transit-to-natal aspects with orbs and applying/separating status. It still doesn't mention limits on date range (which the schema only reveals for natalChart.date) or result volume.

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 operation, then returns, then the natal branch, then use cases — a sensible order with no repetition of schema text. The closing 'Perfect for...' sentence is mild marketing but does carry usage signal.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Output schema exists and annotations cover safety, so the description's job is to explain scope and the optional comparison mode, which it does fully. An agent knows what it gets back in both the no-natal and natal cases without reading further.

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 the baseline is 3; the description goes slightly beyond by explaining what supplying natalChart actually changes in the response (transit-to-natal aspects with orbs and applying/separating status). The other parameters (date, time, timezone, nodeType, compact, lang) are documented exhaustively in the schema and need no restatement here.

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 ('Calculate current or future planetary transits') and scopes it precisely (positions of all bodies, optional natal comparison). It never names the closely related siblings post_astrology_transit_aspects or post_astrology_transits_monthly, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

Use cases are given ('daily transit forecasts, aspect alerts, personalized transit reports') and the natal-chart branch is described, which implies when to add natalChart. However there is no explicit when-not guidance and no routing to or away from the aspect-only and monthly transit siblings, which is exactly where an agent would hesitate.

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