astroway_geomancy_viaCalculates the Via geomancy figure (Agrippa) to interpret movement, change, and journey themes in a divination reading.
Movement, change, journey.
[Group: Geomancy (Agrippa)] [Endpoint: POST /v1/geomancy/via] [Cost: 10 credits (Tier 1)]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| figure | No | ||
| source | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the endpoint and a 10-credit Tier 1 cost, but it does not explain what kind of result is produced or whether this is a static lookup versus a calculation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loads the thematic keywords before metadata, with no wasted sentences. However, the three-word body is under-specified rather than genuinely concise for an agent trying to understand the tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although an output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description does not clearly identify the tool as a geomancy figure lookup or explain what distinguishes Via from the other geomancy endpoints. For an obscure symbolic figure, the sparse keyword list is not enough context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
This tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the empty schema. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description gives thematic keywords ('Movement, change, journey') rather than stating what the tool does. It never says it returns or interprets the geomancy figure Via, so an agent must infer purpose from the name, title, and group metadata.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other geomancy figure endpoints or other divination siblings. The agent gets no context for selection beyond the tool name and endpoint path.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.