astroway_tarot_lenormand_housesRetrieve the 36 fixed houses for Lenormand Grand Tableau interpretation to map card positions and interpret readings accurately.
The 36 fixed houses for Grand Tableau interpretation.
[Group: Tarot: Lenormand] [Endpoint: GET /v1/tarot/lenormand/houses] [Cost: 10 credits (Tier 1)]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | ||
| items | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds billing cost (10 credits), endpoint method, and grouping, but does not disclose auth requirements, rate limits, caching, or response shape; the output schema likely covers return values.
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 only four short bracketed lines, and the resource definition is front-loaded before metadata. The group/endpoint/cost lines are compact and mostly useful, though the group label is marginal.
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?
For a zero-parameter reference endpoint with complete annotations and an output schema, the description provides enough context: it names the dataset and its Grand Tableau interpretation use. An agent does not need additional parameter or return-value detail from the description.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. The description appropriately does not invent parameter details for a no-argument reference lookup.
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 identifies a specific static resource—the 36 Lenormand houses—and scopes it to Grand Tableau interpretation. It lacks an explicit verb/return statement and does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling Lenormand draw tools such as astroway_tarot_lenormand_draw_grand_tableau, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
The phrase 'for Grand Tableau interpretation' implies a use context, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to related alternatives such as the Grand Tableau draw or Lenormand card reference tools. Usage is inferable but not clearly guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.