astroway-mcp

Official

by astroway

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Remote

Dashas: Tribhagi Mahadasha

astroway_vedic_dashas_tribhagi_maha

Read-onlyIdempotent

Calculate Tribhagi Mahadasha periods to get finer-grained Vedic timing within a Vimshottari-equivalent 40-year cycle from birth data.

Instructions

Tribhagi Dasha: 1/3-scale variant of Vimshottari (40-year cycle). Same 9-planet sequence (Ketu→Venus→Sun→Moon→Mars→Rahu→Jupiter→Saturn→Mercury) and same nakshatra-mapping rule, all periods × (1/3): Ketu 7/3, Venus 20/3, Sun 2, Moon 10/3, etc. Useful when finer-grain timing is needed within a Vimshottari-equivalent span. Returns the running cycle of 9 mahadashas from the chart's initial-balance-adjusted birth time.

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

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`body`	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
`level`	No
`system`	No
`initial`	No
`periods`	No
`ayanamsa`	No
`nakshatra`	No
`moonSiderealLongitude`	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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds real value on top of that: how periods are derived (same 9-planet order, same nakshatra mapping, periods × 1/3), and that results start from an initial-balance-adjusted birth time. It does not describe rate limits or response shape, but an output schema exists, so that is a smaller gap.

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 definition, then period arithmetic, then the use case. Mostly earns its place, though the enumeration of individual fractional periods ('Ketu 7/3, Venus 20/3, Sun 2, Moon 10/3, etc.') is illustrative trivia that could be trimmed without loss.

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?

Annotations cover safety, the schema covers the single birth-data parameter, and an output schema exists, so the description only needs to identify the technique and its output, which it does. Omitting sibling routing is the main incompleteness.

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 the description says nothing about the birth-data parameters (date, time, latitude, longitude, ayanamsa). With the schema fully documented, baseline 3 is the right score: no extra meaning is added, but nothing is missing.

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?

It names the exact technique (Tribhagi Dasha), defines it precisely as a 1/3-scale variant of Vimshottari with a 40-year cycle, and states the output ('the running cycle of 9 mahadashas'). The 'maha' level is implicit but clear from '9 mahadashas', which separates it from the antar/prana/sookshma siblings.

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?

'Useful when finer-grain timing is needed within a Vimshottari-equivalent span' gives one real usage condition, which is context. However, it never mentions the obvious alternatives (vimshottari_maha for the standard cycle, tribhagi_antar/pratyantar for sub-periods), so an agent must infer which sibling to select.

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

Deploy Server