astroway-mcp

Official

by astroway

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Remote

Compatibility: Ashtakoot Guna Milan (8-fold 36-point)

astroway_vedic_compatibility_ashtakoot

Read-onlyIdempotent

Calculates 8-Kuta Vedic matchmaking compatibility from two birth charts, returning a 36-point total, per-Kuta scores, Bhakoot/Nadi dosha flags, and a threshold verdict.

Instructions

Canonical 8-Kuta matchmaking out of 36 points: Varna(1) + Vashya(2) + Tara(3) + Yoni(4) + Graha-Maitri(5) + Gana(6) + Bhakoot(7) + Nadi(8). Threshold 18+ traditionally acceptable; 24+ good; 32+ excellent. Returns per-Kuta scores + Bhakoot/Nadi dosha flags + threshold verdict.

[Group: Vedic] [Endpoint: POST /v1/vedic/compatibility/ashtakoot] [Required: chart1, chart2] [Cost: 50 credits (Tier 3)]

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chart1`	Yes	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.
`chart2`	Yes	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.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`boy`	No
`max`	No
`girl`	No
`total`	No
`doshas`	No
`method`	No
`points`	No
`school`	No
`threshold`	No
`recommendation`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.6.0Oct 24, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious context: a 50-credit (Tier 3) cost and that the response carries per-Kuta scores plus Bhakoot/Nadi dosha flags and a threshold verdict. It does not mention whether chart order matters (Tara, Vashya and Graha Maitri are asymmetric), which is the one behavioral detail still missing.

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?

Front-loaded with the core computation and its point breakdown, then thresholds, then return shape, with the operational metadata in a compact bracketed footer. The Kuta enumeration is informative rather than padding, though the list of eight names is the longest block and its value is mostly reference material.

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

Completeness4/5

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 not be explained, and the description still summarizes them usefully. Cost and required inputs are covered. The remaining gap is that the semantics of assigning chart1 vs chart2 in an asymmetric Ashtakoot calculation are left entirely to the schema, which is silent on it.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and both nested chart objects are fully documented in-schema (including timezone/ayanamsa/house-system rules), so the description only echoes '[Required: chart1, chart2]'. It adds no meaning about which chart is the reference party for the asymmetric Kutas.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names the specific technique (Ashtakoot Guna Milan, 36-point scale) and enumerates all eight Kutas with their point weights, which unambiguously distinguishes it from the sibling dashakoota, full, bhrigu_match and manglik_check variants. An agent knows exactly what computation this performs without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description supplies interpretation thresholds (18+/24+/32+) so the agent knows how to read results, but never states when to pick this over astroway_vedic_compatibility_full, astroway_vedic_compatibility_dashakoota, or astroway_relational_match_score. Usage is only implied by the word 'matchmaking'.

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

Deploy Server