Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
HellenicStar Astrology MCP Server

HellenicStar Astrology MCP Server

by qingxiayi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

calculate_secondary_progressions

Read-onlyIdempotent

Calculate secondary progression charts from a birth chart using a target date or age, returning progressed planets, angles, natal aspects, and lunation phase for astrological analysis.

Instructions

Secondary progressions (Day-for-a-Year) chart: progressed planets, angles, natal aspects and lunation phase. Specify as_of or age; angle_progression_method defaults to naibod, or choose solar_arc_in_ra. Server checks run before successful results are returned. Before interpreting this data, call verify_calculation_claims with its unchanged calculation_reference and draft source-field claims. Correct contradicted facts and reverify before the final answer. Psychological interpretations are not checked. Optional detail_level=summary previews object/nested rows (up to five), preserves complete scalar membership lists, and marks truncation; include selects top-level content fields. Omit both for the original full result. Verification references always identify the complete checked calculation.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ageNo
dayNo
foldNo
hourNo
yearNo
as_ofNo
monthNo
minuteNo
includeNoOptional 1-30 top-level content field names, each 1-80 characters. Omit to return all content. Control/provenance fields remain; unknown or control field names return invalid_input with available_fields. Known selectable fields: progressed_chart, progressed_ephemeris_date, progressed_to_natal_aspects. Use these exact names.
location_idNo
detail_levelNofull returns complete calculation content. summary previews up to five object/nested rows per list, preserves scalar membership lists, and reports omitted counts. References still identify the full calculation.full
house_systemNo
angle_progression_methodNonaibod

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.7
    • changedInput schema / properties / include / description
      Previous value: -"Optional 1-30 top-level content field names, each 1-80 characters. Omit to return all content. Control/provenance fields remain; unknown or control field names return invalid_input with available_fields."New value: +"Optional 1-30 top-level content field names, each 1-80 characters. Omit to return all content. Control/provenance fields remain; unknown or control field names return invalid_input with available_fields. Known selectable fields: progressed_chart, progressed_ephemeris_date, progressed_to_natal_aspects. Use these exact names."
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / detail_level / description
      Added value: +"full returns complete calculation content. summary previews up to five object/nested rows per list, preserves scalar membership lists, and reports omitted counts. References still identify the full calculation."
    • addedInput schema / properties / include / description
      Added value: +"Optional 1-30 top-level content field names, each 1-80 characters. Omit to return all content. Control/provenance fields remain; unknown or control field names return invalid_input with available_fields."
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful beyond-annotation context: server-side checks run before results, verification references always identify the complete calculation, and detail_level truncation semantics. It doesn't describe output shape, but that is a lesser gap given the read-only profile.

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 contents, then the method choice, then the verification workflow and detail_level rules. It is dense but nearly every clause carries actionable information; only the 'server checks run before successful results are returned' phrasing is somewhat vague filler.

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?

There is no output schema and 13 parameters, so the description carries substantial burden. It covers the verification workflow and preview semantics well, but with half the parameters undocumented and no return-value shape, an agent still faces gaps before calling 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 coverage is low (15%) across 13 parameters, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains as_of/age, angle_progression_method options, and detail_level/include behavior, but leaves day/month/year/hour/minute/fold/location_id/house_system undocumented in either description or schema.

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?

The description states a specific resource and enumerates its outputs (progressed planets, angles, natal aspects, lunation phase), which is concrete. It does not explicitly differentiate from calculate_progressed_lunation or render_secondary_progressions_chart, leaving some sibling disambiguation to inference.

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?

It gives explicit input guidance ('Specify as_of or age'), names the default and the alternative for angle_progression_method, and prescribes a workflow (call verify_calculation_claims before interpreting). It lacks a clear 'when not to use' versus the progressed-lunation or rendering siblings, so not a 5.

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