StarMeet MCP Server

get_nakshatra

Retrieve detailed Vedic nakshatra profiles including ruling planet, presiding deity, temperament, and compatibility notes. Supports all 27 lunar mansions.

Instructions

Get detailed profile of any of the 27 Vedic nakshatras (lunar mansions). Returns ruling planet (lord), presiding deity, gana (temperament: Deva/Manushya/Rakshasa), symbol, core themes, and compatibility notes. Data sourced from classical Jyotish texts via star-meet.com.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "get_nakshatra"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Nakshatra name in English (e.g. "Ashwini", "Rohini", "Pushya", "Chitra", "Revati"). All 27 nakshatras supported.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.0Jul 11, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the obvious read nature. It mentions data source but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or side effects. For a simple read tool, this is acceptable but minimal.

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 concise sentences: the first states purpose and return fields, the second adds data source. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one param, read-only, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: input format, return fields, data source. Minor omission of spelling/sensitivity details, but examples suffice.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'name', and the description adds value by providing examples and clarifying the format (English names, supported list). This goes beyond the schema's minimal description.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get detailed profile of any of the 27 Vedic nakshatras.' It lists specific return fields and differentiates from siblings by being a dedicated nakshatra lookup.

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?

The description implicitly guides usage by focusing on nakshatra details, but lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives. However, the specificity makes it clear when to invoke this tool instead of siblings like calculate_kundali or get_panchang.

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

Deploy Server