astroway-mcp

Official

by astroway

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Remote

MCP Multi-Agent Coordinate

astroway_mcp_multi_agent_coordinate

Read-onlyIdempotent

Runs multiple astrology personas in parallel on one question and synthesizes their answers into a unified LLM response for multi-perspective chart interpretation.

Instructions

Run N personas in parallel + LLM synthesis.

[Group: MCP Advanced] [Endpoint: POST /v1/mcp/multi-agent-coordinate] [Required: question, agents] [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": {
      "question": "<question>",
      "agents": "<agents>"
    },
    "name": "astroway_mcp_multi_agent_coordinate"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chart`	No	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.
`agents`	Yes
`language`	No		en
`question`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`synthesis`	No
`individual`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.6.1Nov 9, 2026

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."

Addedv1.6.0Oct 24, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful operational context by disclosing the 100-credit Tier 4 cost and the required fields, but it does not explain concurrency behavior, agent limits beyond the schema, or what the synthesis produces. It is consistent with the annotations, not contradictory.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is four terse lines: the core action is front-loaded, followed by group, endpoint, required fields, and cost. There is no filler, and every line carries useful operational information.

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?

For a complex tool with a nested birth-chart object and multi-persona synthesis, the description is too thin. It does not explain the role of the chart, what a persona is, or how the agents are combined. The output schema covers return values, but the behavioral context is still incomplete.

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 25%, so the description needs to compensate but does not. It merely restates that question and agents are required, and adds no meaning about the nested chart birth-data object or the language parameter.

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 operation: run N personas in parallel and synthesize with an LLM. It is more specific than a generic chat tool, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as astroway_mcp_agent_debate or astroway_mcp_multi_chart_context.

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 guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternatives. The required parameters, endpoint, and cost are metadata rather than usage criteria.

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

Deploy Server