Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
astroway-mcp

astroway-mcp

Official
by astroway
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Explain Aspect

astroway_mcp_ai_explain_aspect
Read-only

Explains an astrological aspect between two planets, with optional birth-chart and language inputs, to clarify what that planetary relationship means.

Instructions

Detailed explanation of an aspect between two planets.

[Group: AI & MCP] [Endpoint: POST /v1/ai/explain-aspect] [Required: planet1, planet2, aspectType] [Cost: 100 credits (Tier 4)]

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "planet1": "<planet1>",
      "planet2": "<planet2>",
      "aspectType": "<aspectType>"
    },
    "name": "astroway_mcp_ai_explain_aspect"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chartNoBirth data for a single natal chart. Required: date (YYYY-MM-DD), time (HH:mm:ss), latitude and longitude in decimal degrees. The short forms lat, lon, lng and tz are rejected with 400 INVALID_FIELD; pass the full names. timezoneOffset is hours from UTC and defaults to 0, meaning UTC; send timezone instead (an IANA name such as Europe/Kyiv, or auto) and the offset for that date is worked out, summer time included. city is a display label only: nothing here geocodes it, so it never stands in for coordinates. houseSystem is a single house-system letter, P by default; a name such as "Placidus" is refused, and the case matters because I and i are two different Sunshine systems.
planet1Yes
planet2Yes
languageNouk
aspectTypeYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
explanationNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.6.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / chart / description
      Previous value: -"Birth data for a single natal chart. Required: date (YYYY-MM-DD), time (HH:mm:ss), latitude and longitude in decimal degrees. The short forms lat, lon, lng and tz are rejected with 400 INVALID_FIELD; pass the full names. timezoneOffset is hours from UTC and defaults to 0, meaning UTC; send timezone instead (an IANA name such as Europe/Kyiv, or auto) and the offset for that date is worked out, summer time included. city is a display label only: nothing here geocodes it, so it never stands in for coordinates. houseSystem is a single Swiss Ephemeris letter, P by default; a name such as \"Placidus\" is refused, and the case matters because I and i are two different Sunshine systems."New value: +"Birth data for a single natal chart. Required: date (YYYY-MM-DD), time (HH:mm:ss), latitude and longitude in decimal degrees. The short forms lat, lon, lng and tz are rejected with 400 INVALID_FIELD; pass the full names. timezoneOffset is hours from UTC and defaults to 0, meaning UTC; send timezone instead (an IANA name such as Europe/Kyiv, or auto) and the offset for that date is worked out, summer time included. city is a display label only: nothing here geocodes it, so it never stands in for coordinates. houseSystem is a single house-system letter, P by default; a name such as \"Placidus\" is refused, and the case matters because I and i are two different Sunshine systems."
  2. Addedv1.6.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the description does not need to re-establish the safety profile. It does add genuinely useful context in the form of the endpoint path and the 100-credit Tier 4 cost, which tells an agent this is a metered call worth rationing.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the bracketed metadata lines are compact and scannable, with no filler prose. Some of that bracket content merely repeats schema facts, but overall the definition is tight.

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

Completeness2/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but for a tool with a nested chart object and five parameters the description is thin. It never explains how planet names are spelled, whether the chart is optional, or how this explanation differs from the transit and interpretation siblings.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 20%, so the description should compensate, but aside from listing the three required names it adds nothing. The accepted format for planet1 and planet2 (full names vs abbreviations, case sensitivity, whether the chart object influences the aspect) is left entirely unexplained even though it is the main practical risk in calling this tool.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: a detailed explanation of an aspect between two planets. That is unambiguous on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from nearby siblings such as explain_transit or the interpret_* family, so an agent must infer 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 Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The metadata lines only restate required parameters and cost, so an agent gets no help choosing between this and the many other AI explanation tools.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools