Skip to main content
Glama
douglasgan

asktian MCP Server

by douglasgan
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

asktian_compatibility

Assess interpersonal compatibility through Chinese metaphysics. Returns a qualitative label and numeric score, hiding low scores to avoid rejection.

Instructions

Compute fate compatibility between two people via Chinese metaphysics (八字 pairing, 5-element generation/clash). Returns qualitative label first (e.g. '互补型 Complementary'), then a numeric score (hidden if <60 to avoid making low-compat feel like rejection — this is intentional per the asktian design principles). Useful when user asks about compatibility, fit, or 'will this person and I work'.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
person_a_birthdateYesISO YYYY-MM-DD birthdate of the first person.
person_b_birthdateYesISO YYYY-MM-DD birthdate of the second person.
dimensionNoWhich dimension to weight. Default 'general'.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided; description carries full burden. Discloses key behavioral trait: numeric score is hidden if <60, with design reasoning. Also mentions methodology (八字 pairing, 5-element generation/clash). No contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant details. Every sentence adds value: first states action and methodology, second states output format and behavioral nuance.

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?

Covers output format, hidden score behavior, and general purpose. However, does not explain the meaning of the 'dimension' enum values or the range of qualitative labels beyond an example. Given no output schema, slightly more detail would be ideal.

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%; all parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what schema provides, so baseline score of 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?

Description clearly states the tool computes fate compatibility using Chinese metaphysics (八字, 5-element). It specifies output format: qualitative label first, numeric score second. No sibling tool overlaps, so purpose is distinct.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly indicates usefulness when user asks about compatibility, fit, or 'will this person and I work'. No explicit when-not or alternatives, but sibling tools cover different domains (e.g., market, name analysis), so context is adequate.

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