Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
astroway-mcp

astroway-mcp

Official
by astroway
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Explain Transit

astroway_mcp_ai_explain_transit
Read-only

Explain how a current transit affects a natal chart by detailing the aspect between a transiting planet and a natal planet on a chosen date.

Instructions

Explain a current transit hitting your natal chart.

[Group: AI & MCP] [Endpoint: POST /v1/ai/explain-transit] [Required: chart, transitDate, transitPlanet, natalPlanet, 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": {
      "chart": "<chart>",
      "transitDate": "<transitDate>",
      "transitPlanet": "<transitPlanet>",
      "natalPlanet": "<natalPlanet>",
      "aspectType": "<aspectType>"
    },
    "name": "astroway_mcp_ai_explain_transit"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chartYesBirth 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.
languageNouk
aspectTypeYes
natalPlanetYes
transitDateYes
transitPlanetYes

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description genuinely adds billing and endpoint facts not present in annotations: 100 credits at Tier 4 and POST /v1/ai/explain-transit. It says nothing about whether repeated identical calls are billed again (relevant because idempotentHint is false on a read-only call) or about latency and language handling.

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?

One front-loaded sentence plus a compact bracketed metadata block; no filler, and the cost/endpoint lines are placed after the purpose. The bracketed formatting is slightly noisy but each line conveys a distinct operational fact.

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?

This is a complex tool: six parameters, five required, a deeply nested chart object with its own timezone and house-system rules. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the description gives no guidance on constructing the planet/aspect inputs or on how the explanation is scoped, leaving the agent to infer behavior from schema internals.

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 17%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, but it only repeats the required-field names already listed in the schema's required array. Nothing explains what values transitPlanet/natalPlanet accept, what language does, or how aspectType constrains the output. The nested chart object is documented inside the schema itself, which mitigates the gap but is not credit due to the description.

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: 'Explain a current transit hitting your natal chart.' The required-parameter list makes the scope concrete (one transit planet, one natal planet, one aspect type, one date). It does not name or distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as astroway_mcp_ai_explain_aspect or astroway_ai_interpret_transits, so an agent must infer the split.

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. Nothing says how this differs from the aspect-explainer or the broader transit-interpretation tools, and no prerequisite (e.g., that a natal chart and a known transit aspect are needed first) is spelled out. The only routing cues are the word 'current' and the required-field list.

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