Generates a 720px PNG wheel of a relocation chart from birth and relocation location inputs, so users can visually inspect astrological placements.
Render the relocation chart as a 720px PNG wheel shown to the user. Same inputs as calculate_relocation_chart.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| day | No | ||
| fold | No | ||
| hour | No | ||
| year | No | ||
| month | No | ||
| minute | No | ||
| location_id | No | ||
| house_system | No | placidus | |
| relocation_location_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds important output context: a 720px PNG wheel shown to the user, and input parity with calculate_relocation_chart. It does not detail error behavior or whether rendering is always successful, but the key behavioral traits are present.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The definition is two sentences with no wasted words. The primary purpose and output format are front-loaded, followed by the sibling input reference.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with rich annotations but no output schema, the description adequately explains the return format as a 720px PNG wheel and ties inputs to calculate_relocation_chart. It is not fully self-contained on parameter semantics, but it gives the agent a clear path to find them via the sibling tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are 9 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries a heavy burden. 'Same inputs as calculate_relocation_chart' provides a useful cross-reference to another tool's parameter semantics, but it does not directly explain any parameter's meaning, format, or constraints. This is a minimum-viable compensation rather than full parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Render the relocation chart as a 720px PNG wheel shown to the user.' The second sentence distinguishes it from the sibling calculation tool by noting it shares inputs with calculate_relocation_chart, making clear this is the visual-output counterpart.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
'Shown to the user' gives clear context that this is for visual presentation, and 'Same inputs as calculate_relocation_chart' names the related sibling. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or state that calculate_relocation_chart is the alternative for non-visual results.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.