astroway-mcp

Official

by astroway

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Remote

Compatibility: Dashakoota (10-fold 39-point)

astroway_vedic_compatibility_dashakoota

Read-onlyIdempotent

Score a couple's Vedic matchmaking with the 39-point Dashakoota system, combining Ashtakoot with Mahendra and Vedha checks from two birth charts.

Instructions

Extended matchmaking adding Mahendra(2) + Vedha(1) on top of Ashtakoot 36 = 39 max. Mahendra: birth-star count 4/7/10/13/16/19/22/25 → 2pt; else 0. Vedha: 13 canonical mutually-obstructing nakshatra pairs → 0pt blocked, 1pt clear.

[Group: Vedic] [Endpoint: POST /v1/vedic/compatibility/dashakoota] [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
`vedha`	No
`doshas`	No
`method`	No
`points`	No
`school`	No
`mahendra`	No
`threshold`	No
`dashakootaMax`	No
`recommendation`	No
`dashakootaTotal`	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 closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context the annotations can't: the exact scoring rules for Mahendra and Vedha, the blocking semantics of the 13 Vedha pairs, and the 50-credit Tier 3 cost.

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 differentiating 39-point definition and scoring rules in two dense sentences, followed by compact metadata (group, endpoint, required, cost). No filler, though the rule notation is terse enough to need a second read.

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?

With an output schema present and full parameter documentation, the description only needs to explain the distinctive calculation, which it does precisely. Remaining gap is the absence of sibling routing guidance, which the very large compatibility tool family makes valuable.

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 description coverage is 100% and each chart object is richly documented in the nested schema. The description only restates '[Required: chart1, chart2]' and adds nothing about the birth-data format beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific computation: extended Vedic matchmaking that adds Mahendra (2) + Vedha (1) to the Ashtakoot 36 for a 39-point maximum. This makes it clearly distinguishable from the sibling astroway_vedic_compatibility_ashtakoot without opening either 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 phrase 'on top of Ashtakoot 36' implies this is the fuller option, but the description never says when to choose it over astroway_vedic_compatibility_ashtakoot or the other compatibility siblings, and lists no exclusions.

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

Deploy Server