Skip to main content
Glama
asterwise

Asterwise

Official

Varshaphal Harsha Bala

asterwise_get_varshaphal_harsha_bala
Read-onlyIdempotent

Compute Harsha Bala (0-20) for seven classical planets in a Varshaphal solar return to gauge positional happiness; the Year Lord's score reveals the year's core ease or difficulty.

Instructions

Computes Harsha Bala (positional happiness score) for all 7 classical planets in a Varshaphal solar return chart. Maximum 20 per planet (4 components × 5 points each).

WORKFLOW: BEFORE: RECOMMENDED — asterwise_get_varshaphal — identify the Year Lord (Varsha Pati) before interpreting Harsha Bala. The Year Lord's Harsha Bala is the most actionable number in this response. AFTER: asterwise_get_varshaphal_saham — use Harsha Bala to assess whether each Saham lord can deliver its theme with ease or difficulty.

INPUT CONTRACT: Same as asterwise_get_varshaphal — BirthData plus target_year. target_year (required int): The Gregorian civil year of the solar return. Not age. time (required): Solar return ascendant and house positions are time-sensitive.

DO NOT CONFUSE WITH: asterwise_get_varshaphal — returns Pancha Vargeeya Bala (mathematical strength out of 80) for the Pancha Adhikaris; Harsha Bala (positional happiness out of 20) is a completely different measurement returned by this tool. asterwise_get_varshaphal_saham — derives sensitive zodiac points; this tool scores planet positional comfort. asterwise_get_chart_strength — Shadbala for the natal chart, not Tajika Harsha Bala for the solar return.

Full output and error contract: https://docs.asterwise.com/mcp/tools/get-varshaphal-harsha-bala/

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
yearYesFour-digit calendar year, e.g. 2026. Defaults to the current year when omitted.
birthYesBirth data for a single person.
response_formatNoOutput format: 'markdown' (default) for a readable report, or 'json' for the raw structured payload.markdown

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description does not contradict them. It adds useful context about time sensitivity and the meaning of the score, but the erroneous 'time required' statement undermines transparency about actual parameter expectations.

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 well-organized into sections (description, workflow, input contract, do-not-confuse) and is concise overall. However, it contains redundant mentions of the score range (e.g., 'Maximum 20 per planet' and 'out of 20') and a parameter-name error that adds noise without benefit.

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 description includes a link to the full output/error contract, explains the tool's role within the Varshaphal workflow, and clarifies its relationship to sibling tools. The input contract's inaccuracies create some gaps in understanding the exact required parameters, but the availability of a schema and output schema mitigates this.

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?

The input schema already provides comprehensive descriptions for all parameters, so the description's additional context is marginal. It clarifies that the year is not age and that time affects results, but the naming mismatch ('target_year' vs 'year') introduces confusion rather than adding value.

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 that the tool computes Harsha Bala for solar return charts, specifies the maximum score per planet (20) and its four components, and differentiates it from related tools. It leaves little ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 provides explicit workflow recommendations (use asterwise_get_varshaphal first to identify the Year Lord, then apply the output with asterwise_get_varshaphal_saham) and a clear 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH' section. However, the 'INPUT CONTRACT' misnames the year parameter as 'target_year' instead of 'year' and incorrectly marks 'time' as required when the schema allows omission, which could mislead an agent during invocation.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

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/asterwise/asterwise-mcp'

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