Kabbalah MCP Server by RoxyAPI

Compare two names - gematria name compatibility API with every component published

post_kabbalah_compatibility

Read-only

Score two names against each other in gematria and return both profiles, the ciphers they agree on, and a composite with every component and its maximum published beside it. Equal value under the standard reading is the one relation the classical method actually works with and it carries the largest weight; the rest of the composite is ours and the response says so, so a caller can recompute or ignore it. Built for name compatibility features, relationship content and any product that wants a number it can show the arithmetic for.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`lang`	No	Response language (BCP 47). Supported: en, tr, de, es, hi, pt, fr, ru, zh-Hans, zh-Hant. Defaults to en. Coverage varies by domain, and a field with no translation in the requested language returns English.	en
`compact`	No	Set true for the same data in a compact shape: arrays of same-shaped objects arrive columnar as {"__cols":[names],"__rows":[[values]]}. Lossless, typically 40 to 52 percent fewer tokens.
`firstName`	No	First name in Latin script. Send firstNameHebrew instead to control the spelling.
`secondName`	No	Second name in Latin script. Send secondNameHebrew instead to control the spelling.
`misparGadol`	No	Which method the name mispar gadol means, because the sources use it for two. Use finals-500-900 to score the five word final letters as 500 to 900, or milui to score each letter as the value of its own spelled out name.	finals-500-900
`firstNameHebrew`	No	First name already in Hebrew, which skips the transliteration step.
`transliteration`	No	How a Latin name is written in Hebrew before it is scored. One member, a deterministic published letter map. Phonetic Ashkenazi and Sephardi schemes are not offered because no two references agree on a rule for that direction, and every published Hebrew standard romanizes the other way. Send textHebrew to control the spelling yourself.	letter-map-mathers
`secondNameHebrew`	No	Second name already in Hebrew, which skips the transliteration step.

Schema Changelog

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

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive, so the description adds valuable behavioral context: it discloses that the composite is partly proprietary, that the classical method only covers equal value under the standard reading, and that the response itself marks which parts are ours. This lets callers decide whether to recompute or ignore components, which is far beyond the annotation baseline.

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?

Three information-dense sentences, each earning its place: what the tool returns, how the composite weighting works, and when to use it. Slightly wordy around 'every component and its maximum published beside it,' but overall well-structured and front-loaded with the core action.

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?

With no output schema, the description provides a useful conceptual response map: profiles, agreeing ciphers, and a composite with component maxima. It does not spell out exact field names or compact/lang behaviors, but the schema covers parameters and the description gives enough for correct invocation and expectation-setting.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond echoing the two-name concept, but it does not need to because every parameter is already documented in 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Score two names against each other in gematria,' and then enumerates the return components: both profiles, agreeing ciphers, and a composite with published maxima. This clearly differentiates it from single-name profile or cipher sibling tools by centering on pairwise name compatibility.

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?

The description gives clear use contexts: 'name compatibility features, relationship content and any product that wants a number it can show the arithmetic for.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended scenarios are concrete enough for an agent to route correctly.

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

All Kabbalah MCP Server by RoxyAPI 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

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools are cleanly separated by resource and verb: collection/detail variants exist for letters and names, tree vs single sephirah is clear, and compute endpoints are distinct. The only meaningful overlap is post_kabbalah_gematria and post_kabbalah_name_profile, which both score a name across gematria ciphers and display candidate Hebrew spellings; the descriptions differentiate their outputs but an agent could easily select the wrong one.

Naming Consistency5/5

Every tool follows the same verb_kabbalah_resource pattern, with get_ for reference lookups and post_ for computations. snake_case is used throughout, and detail variants are marked consistently with _id or _number.

Tool Count5/5

Twelve tools is well within the ideal range and each tool covers a distinct area: catalogues, letters, names, sephirot/tree, daily Omer, and name calculations. The surface is broad enough to be useful without feeling inflated.

Completeness5/5

The API covers the core domain comprehensively: reference data for ciphers, letters, 72 names, sephirot/tree, dated Omer count, and the main name-scoring operations including compatibility. CRUD is not applicable for a read-only/compute server, and get_kabbalah_tree already provides collection-level sephirot data, so there are no obvious dead ends.

Resources

Need Help?