Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ziwei-mcp

ziwei-mcp

by xjoey1957
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

紫微斗数排盘

get_chart
Read-onlyIdempotent

Generate a Zi Wei Dou Shu chart from Gregorian or lunar birth date, time, gender, and optional city; returns twelve-palace structured JSON and an online chart link.

Instructions

根据出生日期（公历或农历）、时间或时辰、性别、可选出生城市，排出紫微斗数命盘，返回十二宫结构化 JSON（宫位、干支、主星亮度、四化、辅星、大限）以及在线命盘链接。内容为传统文化参考。

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": {
      "date": "<date>",
      "gender": "<gender>"
    },
    "name": "get_chart"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cityNo出生城市（中国），如「北京」「广东省/深圳」。填了且有具体时间时做真太阳时校正
dateYes出生日期 YYYY-MM-DD。calendar=lunar 时填农历年月日，如 1990-04-21
timeNo出生钟表时间 HH:MM（24 小时制）。已知具体时间时优先填这个
branchNo只知道时辰时填：0–11 或 子/丑/寅/卯/辰/巳/午/未/申/酉/戌/亥
genderYes'male' 男 或 'female' 女
lateZiNo子时出生且为晚子时（23:00–23:59）时为 true，按次日排盘
calendarNo'solar' 公历（默认）或 'lunar' 农历
ignoreDstNo1986–1991 夏令时期间，所填已是标准时间时为 true；默认自动减 1 小时
leapMonthNo农历闰月时为 true

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds return-content shape (twelve palaces, 干支, star brightness, 四化, 辅星, 大限) and an online link, plus a disclaimer that output is traditional-culture reference rather than authoritative — useful context beyond the annotations. It still says nothing about validation failures, how missing time is handled (e.g. default 子时), or how the returned link behaves.

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?

One dense, front-loaded sentence that moves from purpose to inputs to return value to a disclaimer. It is long but every clause covers real ground; a light structural split would improve scanability.

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 nine-parameter tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden adequately by enumerating the twelve-palace fields and the link. The only material gap is the absence of routing guidance relative to get_reading_summary and get_twins.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter is documented in detail there, including precedence (已知具体时间时优先填 time), DST handling, and 晚子时. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond restating the input set, but the schema is fully documented, so baseline 3 applies and the description's confirmation of the solar/lunar duality gives it a slight boost.

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 names a concrete operation and object (排出紫微斗数命盘) and specifies the inputs (birth date, time or 时辰, gender, optional city), plus the returned data. It does not mention the sibling tools get_reading_summary or get_twins, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone where this tool sits relative to those siblings.

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?

Usage is only implied: it is clear you call it when you have birth data and want a chart, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no naming of get_reading_summary or get_twins as alternatives for downstream interpretation. The 'time vs branch' choice is left entirely to the schema.

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