Asterwise

Name Correction

asterwise_get_name_correction

Read-onlyIdempotent

Scores the current spelling of a personal name against the birth-date Life Path, suggests alternate spellings with harmony metrics, and echoes recommendation stub fields.

WORKFLOW: BEFORE: RECOMMENDED — asterwise_get_numerology_profile — baseline numbers before renaming advice. AFTER: None.

INPUT CONTRACT: name and date strings only; upstream validates.

DO NOT CONFUSE WITH: asterwise_get_business_name_analysis — entity Expression scan, not personal spelling alternatives. asterwise_get_chaldean_numerology — Chaldean compounds, not harmony-scored spelling list.

Full output and error contract: https://docs.asterwise.com/mcp/tools/get-name-correction/

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`date`	Yes	Date in YYYY-MM-DD format. Defaults to today when omitted.
`name`	Yes	Person's full name as commonly written; letters are converted to numerology values.
`response_format`	No	Output format: 'markdown' (default) for a readable report, or 'json' for the raw structured payload.	markdown

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed3 schema fields changedSep 5, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / date / description

Added value: +"Date in YYYY-MM-DD format. Defaults to today when omitted."

addedInput schema / properties / name / description

Added value: +"Person's full name as commonly written; letters are converted to numerology values."

addedInput schema / properties / response_format / description

Added value: +"Output format: 'markdown' (default) for a readable report, or 'json' for the raw structured payload."

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 4, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / response_format / default
```
Added value: +"markdown"
```

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "name",
-  "date",
-  "response_format"
-]New value: +[
+  "name",
+  "date"
+]

First observedApr 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it scores spelling against Life Path, returns alternate spellings with harmony metrics, echoes recommendation stub fields, and points to the full output/error contract. This is enough for an agent to predict the tool's behavior without over-relying on annotations.

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 well-structured with labeled sections: main purpose, WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, DO NOT CONFUSE, and a docs link. Every section earns its place by giving an agent actionable selection and invocation information without fluff or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the essential context: what the tool does, which tool to run before it, what inputs are valid, how it differs from close siblings, and where to find the full output/error contract. With an output schema present and only three parameters, this is a fully sufficient description for correct agent invocation.

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 the input schema fully documents all three parameters: name, date, and response_format. The description only reinforces that name and date strings are expected and says upstream validates, adding little semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the load.

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 names a specific verb and resource: it scores a personal name's spelling against the birth-date Life Path and suggests alternate spellings with harmony metrics. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from two relevant siblings (asterwise_get_business_name_analysis and asterwise_get_chaldean_numerology), so an agent can confidently separate it from similar numerology tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The WORKFLOW section explicitly recommends running asterwise_get_numerology_profile before this tool and states there is no AFTER step. The DO NOT CONFUSE WITH section explains what this tool is not and how the named siblings differ, giving the agent clear routing guidance.

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

All Asterwise tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Many tools are well-differentiated by explicit 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH' notes, but the sheer number of near-neighbor pairs (e.g., crystal vs gemstone recommendations, natal chart variants, dasha systems, compatibility systems, tarot draw variants) creates real selection risk. The descriptions mitigate overlap, but an agent browsing 103 tools will struggle to pick the right one.

Naming Consistency5/5

Every tool follows the asterwise_get_* or asterwise_draw_* prefix convention with a clear noun phrase (e.g., asterwise_get_natal_chart, asterwise_draw_tarot_cards). The two verbs 'get' and 'draw' are semantically appropriate, and there are no camelCase or mixed-style names.

Tool Count1/5

103 tools is far beyond a manageable MCP surface. While the domain is broad (Vedic astrology, Western astrology, numerology, tarot, crystals, dream symbols), the server bundles multiple distinct domains into one namespace, making it nearly impossible for an agent to discover the right tool efficiently.

Completeness4/5

The surface is impressively comprehensive across astrology, numerology, tarot, and remedies, with deep coverage of dasha systems, compatibility frameworks, and chart types. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tarot interpretation endpoint, no batch operations, no update/delete since it's read-only data), but for a reference/prediction API the coverage is strong.

Resources

Need Help?