Skip to main content
Glama
astroway-mcp

astroway-mcp

Official
by astroway

Dashas: Tribhagi Antardasha

astroway_vedic_dashas_tribhagi_antar
Read-onlyIdempotent

Calculate the nine Tribhagi sub-periods of the running Vedic Mahadasha for a target date, using recursive proportional splits to show when each antardasha begins and ends.

Instructions

Tribhagi Antardasha: 9 sub-periods of the running MD at targetDate. Recursive proportional split (parent_years × sub_planet_period / 40).

[Group: Vedic] [Endpoint: POST /v1/vedic/dashas/tribhagi/antar] [Cost: 20 credits (Tier 2)]

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYesBirth 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

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
levelNo
systemNo
initialNo
periodsNo
ayanamsaNo
nakshatraNo
currentMahaNo
moonSiderealLongitudeNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.6.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the proportional-split formula and the credit cost (20 credits, Tier 2). It does not say what happens when targetDate falls outside the running mahadasha or how nesting is reported, so it stops at adequate.

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 resource and its cardinality, then the formula, then metadata lines. Two substantive sentences, no filler; the bracketed Group/Endpoint/Cost lines are structured and scannable rather than verbose.

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

Completeness3/5

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 described, and annotations cover safety and idempotency. What is missing is disambiguation within a very dense family of dasha tools — the description never places this level in the maha/antar/pratyantar/prana/sookshma hierarchy, which is the main thing an agent needs to pick correctly.

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%, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds a little: targetDate is what determines which mahadasha is being subdivided, which the schema does not state. It says nothing about targetTime/targetTzOffset semantics beyond what the schema implies.

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?

States a specific resource and output cardinality: '9 sub-periods of the running MD at targetDate', plus the recursive split formula. It is distinguishable from tribhagi_maha (whole periods) and tribhagi_pratyantar (deeper level) by the word Antardasha and the '9 sub-periods' count. Minor deduction for the unexplained abbreviation 'MD', which an agent unfamiliar with Vedic dashas must infer.

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?

No statement of when to choose this over the ~25 sibling dasha tools (tribhagi_maha, tribhagi_pratyantar, vimshottari_antar, yogini_antar, etc.), and no prerequisite or exclusion conditions. 'at targetDate' hints the date selects the running mahadasha, but the agent gets no routing guidance.

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