mcp-ephemeris

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.2.3
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: positions, moon phase, sky, aspects, natal chart, transits, solar return, eclipses, synastry, composite chart, and secondary progressions. No two tools do the same thing; even overlapping concepts like aspects are scoped differently (general vs. transits vs. synastry).
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow the consistent pattern 'get_<topic>', with clear and descriptive suffixes (e.g., get_planet_positions, get_moon_phase). No mixing of conventions like camelCase or different verb styles.
Tool Count5/5
With 11 tools, the set covers core ephemeris and astrology functionality without being overwhelming. Each tool earns its place, providing a well-scoped range from basic positions to advanced charts like synastry and secondary progressions.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of ephemeris queries: positions, aspects, moon phase, multiple chart types (natal, solar return, composite), transits, progressions, synastry, and eclipses. Missing features like asteroids or harmonic charts are non-essential for a general service.
Average 3.6/5 across 11 of 11 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 6 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under PolyForm Noncommercial License 1.0.0.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description adds a note about Moon progression speed but lacks disclosure of other behavioral traits such as precision, rate limits, or authentication needs.
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 key information. No extraneous content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Missing details on return format, error handling, or prerequisites. Without annotations or output schema, a more complete description would be expected for a 6-parameter tool.
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%, so the schema already documents all parameters effectively. Description adds minimal extra meaning beyond restating the target date concept.
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?
Clearly describes the tool as computing secondary progressions using the 'day for a year' method, and highlights the Moon's significance. Distinguishes from sibling tools like get_transits or get_natal_chart.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not contrast with siblings such as get_transits or get_solar_return.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool returns aspects sorted by orb and can use a specific datetime, but it does not mention whether it is read-only, required permissions, or any side effects.
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?
The description is concise with two sentences. The first sentence efficiently communicates the core function. The second sentence is brief but somewhat subjective. No unnecessary repetition.
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?
Given no output schema, the description provides a reasonable summary of the output (aspects sorted by orb). However, it lacks detail on data structure, pagination, and edge cases (e.g., missing planetary positions).
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 parameters are well-documented. The description adds value by clarifying that datetime is optional (defaults to now) and the overall purpose, but does not enrich parameter meaning beyond the schema.
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 computes transits (aspects between transit planets and natal planets) sorted by orb, explicitly calling it the core of predictions. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_aspects (likely natal aspects) and get_natal_chart.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_aspects, get_natal_chart). It implies usage for predictions but does not specify prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the method (circular midpoint per Robert Hand), which is helpful. However, it does not mention any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, error handling, or output format, so transparency is moderate.
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?
The description is two concise sentences in French, front-loading the core concept. Every word adds value; no fluff or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema, the description should explain what the composite chart contains (e.g., planet positions, aspects, houses). It only states it represents the relationship, leaving the output structure completely unspecified. This is a significant gap for a tool that returns complex data.
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% with detailed descriptions for all properties in the nested person objects. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 computes a composite chart using midpoints (Robert Hand convention), representing the relationship itself. This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_synastry which focuses on aspects between charts.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_synastry). It lacks any 'when to use' or 'when not to use' context, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that it computes a specific astronomical event (exact time of Sun's return) and that chart location defaults to birth place if not provided. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. Does not mention any side effects, permissions, or rate limits, which is acceptable for a compute-only tool.
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?
Single sentence that is front-loaded with the key purpose and then adds additional detail about location. No wasted words; every part of the sentence is informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, and the description does not indicate what the tool returns (e.g., chart details, time of return, planetary positions). For a tool with 8 parameters and no output description, the completeness is lacking. The description covers input but not output.
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?
Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond confirming that date/time/lat/lon are natal and returnLatitude/returnLongitude are for the return location. With full schema coverage, baseline is 3; description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.
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?
Description clearly states it calculates the exact moment of solar return (Sun returning to natal longitude) and the chart for that moment. Uses specific verb 'calculates' and resource 'solar return chart'. While it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools, the purpose is clear and distinct from other astrological tools like get_planet_positions or get_natal_chart.
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?
Implies usage context: for a given year, using birth data and optionally residence location for calculation. However, no explicit guidance on when to use this vs siblings (e.g., when to use solar return vs secondary progressions). No exclusions or alternatives mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full transparency burden. It mentions output includes positions in houses and aspects, but does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or data format. This is adequate but not thorough.
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?
A single, clear, concise sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and output details. Every word is necessary and well-structured.
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 (2 params, no output schema) and sibling context, the description adequately covers function and output. Minor omission: no mention of time resolution or time zone, but acceptable for a 'current' sky tool.
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 descriptions already fully define latitude and longitude (decimal degrees, ranges, sign conventions) with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, earning the baseline score.
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 returns the current sky (transits) for a given location, including house positions and aspects. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_transits' (likely for arbitrary dates) and 'get_planet_positions' (without aspects/houses).
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'instant présent' implies it's for current sky only, but does not mention exclusions (e.g., past/future dates) or refer to sibling tools like 'get_transits' for other times.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the requirement for the swisseph engine and the null return in AstraCore mode, but does not address other behavioral aspects like rate limits, error handling, or idempotency. This is adequate but not complete.
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?
Two sentences with no superfluous words. The critical info (purpose, return fields, engine dependency) is front-loaded. Could be slightly more structured but effectively concise.
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?
Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description provides the core purpose and a behavioral caveat, but lacks details on return format, error conditions, or examples. Adequate for a simple detail retrieval tool with sibling differentiation from context.
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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (kind, datetime). The description adds value by listing the return fields, but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions.
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 action ('Détail d'une éclipse') and lists the specific return fields (magnitude, obscuration, type, Saros series). It distinguishes itself from sibling astrological tools which focus on planets, moon phases, etc.
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 description implies usage for known eclipse dates and notes engine dependency (swisseph, returns null in AstraCore), but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings. Usage is implied but not fully articulated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'calculated by the engine, not estimated,' which hints at a computational rather than observational behavior, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any required permissions, or potential side effects. For a simple query tool, this is adequate but not outstanding.
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?
The description is exceptionally concise with two sentences, no redundant words, and front-loads the core functionality. Every sentence adds value, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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 parameter, no output schema), the description is largely complete. However, it could be improved by briefly mentioning the output format (e.g., a list or grid of aspects) to fully compensate for the missing output schema. Still, it sufficiently covers the essential context.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for the sole parameter 'datetime,' providing full semantics. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline of 3, neither enhancing nor detracting from parameter understanding.
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 that the tool calculates major and minor aspects between planets at a given time, with orb and tone, and emphasizes that it is engine-calculated not estimated. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_planet_positions or get_moon_phase, making the purpose very specific and clear.
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 description implies usage when one needs aspects at a specific instant, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., get_natal_chart, get_transits). No exclusions or alternative suggestions are given, which is a moderate gap given the context of numerous related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the data is derived from real Sun/Moon positions, but does not detail read-only behavior, computational costs, or any side effects. The description adds some transparency but is incomplete.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that conveys the essential information without redundancy. Every word adds value; there is no filler.
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?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately lists the returned data types (name, illumination %, description). It could mention if the output includes additional details like phase angles, but overall it provides sufficient context for basic use.
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?
The schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter. The description mentions 'à un instant donné' which aligns with the datetime parameter, but adds no additional constraints, format nuances, or default behavior beyond the schema 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 returns moon phase data (name, illumination %, description) for a given datetime, derived from real Sun/Moon positions. This specific verb-resource pair distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on other celestial calculations.
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 description implies usage for obtaining moon phase at a specific instant, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_current_sky or get_planet_positions. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It discloses that calculations are server-side via ephemeris engine, not AI-estimated, which adds important context about accuracy and source. 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, no fluff. Front-loaded with key purpose and scope, then adds behavioral note. Every word earns its place.
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?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what bodies are returned and how positions are computed. Could mention the output format, but not required given lack of schema.
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?
Only one parameter (datetime) with 100% schema coverage. Description mentions 'à un instant donné' (at a given time) but adds little beyond the schema's ISO 8601 format description. Baseline score is appropriate.
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 verb (get positions), the resource (all bodies Sun→Pluto, nodes, Lilith), and the coordinate system (geocentric ecliptic). It distinguishes from siblings which focus on moon phase, aspects, or charts.
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?
Implied usage: use when you need planetary positions at a given time. However, no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative selection guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: it computes aspects, sorts by orb, and provides a harmony/tension summary. It also mentions reusing the canonical aspect table, adding useful context.
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?
The description is concise, with two sentences that front-load the purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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?
The description explains the output involves aspects sorted by orb and a harmony/tension summary. However, it lacks details on the exact output structure (e.g., fields of each aspect). For a moderately complex tool, it is nearly complete.
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%, so the schema already describes all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond naming the two persons, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 it computes synastry aspects between two individuals, sorted by orb, with a harmony/tension summary. It explicitly mentions 'aspects inter-thèmes entre deux personnes' and 'triés par orbe', making the purpose unambiguous.
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 description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like get_aspects or get_composite_chart. It implies usage for synastry analysis but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses default systems (tropical, Placidus) and fallback behavior for certain house systems. However, it does not mention read-only nature, auth, or output format. For a computation tool, it is fairly transparent.
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?
Single sentence covering essential elements, but could be more structured or broken into bullet points. Still efficient with no wasted words.
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?
No output schema, but description lists included chart components (positions, houses, aspects, ASC/MC, lunar phase, Hermetic Lots). Adequate for an astrological tool with 7 parameters. Could mention return format or error cases, but not required.
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%, so baseline is 3. Description adds minimal new info beyond schema: it mentions local date/time and IANA timezone, already in schema descriptions. No additional parameter semantics.
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 it computes a full natal chart with houses, aspects, ASC/MC, lunar phase, and Hermetic Lots, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_planet_positions or get_aspects. Specific verb 'get' and resource 'natal chart' make purpose unambiguous.
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?
Implicitly indicates use for comprehensive chart vs alternatives, but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions. Still, the description of what it includes (houses, aspects, etc.) clarifies its scope relative to siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-ephemeris MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/kairosastro-sketch/mcp-ephemeris/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/kairosastro-sketch/mcp-ephemeris)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-ephemeris MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/kairosastro-sketch/mcp-ephemeris/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/kairosastro-sketch/mcp-ephemeris)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/kairosastro-sketch/mcp-ephemeris'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server