Skip to main content
Glama

Tarot MCP Server by RoxyAPI

by com.roxyapi

Custom spread builder - Configurable tarot spread API

post_tarot_spreads_custom
Read-only

Build and perform your own custom tarot spread with personalized positions and interpretations (1-10 cards). This flexible endpoint lets you create unique spread layouts for any purpose: define your own position names, meanings, and card count to match your specific needs or therapeutic framework. Perfect for therapists using tarot in counseling, coaches creating signature spreads, app developers building custom reading features, spiritual practitioners with proprietary methods, or anyone wanting to design specialized layouts beyond traditional spreads. Create spreads for specific themes like chakra readings (7 cards), lunar phases (8 cards), elements (4 cards), goals setting (any count), shadow work, inner child healing, decision matrices, or creative problem-solving. Each position requires a name and interpretation, so you define what each card position represents in your reading. The API draws the exact number of cards you specify and maps them to your custom positions. No pre-generated summary is provided, so you interpret the reading based on your framework. Ideal for innovative tarot apps, therapeutic tools, personal development platforms, spiritual coaching services, or experimental divination methods. Maximum 10 positions to maintain reading clarity and practical interpretation time.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
langNoResponse 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
seedNoOptional seed for reproducible results. Same seed with the same positions produces identical card draws for consistent divination.
compactNoSet 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.
questionNoOptional querent question to focus the custom tarot reading. Provides context for position-specific interpretations.
positionsYesArray of 1-10 custom position definitions for your tarot spread. Each position gets one drawn card with a position-specific interpretation.
spreadNameNoOptional name for your custom tarot spread layout. Used as the spread identifier in the response.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / lang / description
      Previous value: -"Response language (ISO 639-1). Supported: en, tr, de, es, hi, pt, fr, ru. Defaults to en. Languages without translations yet return English."New value: +"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."
    • changedInput schema / properties / lang / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "en",
-  "tr",
-  "de",
-  "es",
-  "hi",
-  "pt",
-  "fr",
-  "ru"
-]New value: +[
+  "en",
+  "tr",
+  "de",
+  "es",
+  "hi",
+  "pt",
+  "fr",
+  "ru",
+  "zh-Hans",
+  "zh-Hant"
+]
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "positions": [
+      {
+        "interpretation": "What is really going on",
+        "name": "Core Issue"
+      },
+      {
+        "interpretation": "What you cannot see",
+        "name": "Hidden Factor"
+      },
+      {
+        "interpretation": "What to do next",
+        "name": "Best Action"
+      }
+    ]
+  }
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / compact / description
      Previous value: -"Set true to receive the exact same data in a token-optimized shape that is cheaper for you to read: whitespace is stripped and every array of same-shaped objects is encoded columnar as {\"__cols\":[field names],\"__rows\":[[values]]}, so each field name is sent once instead of once per row. Fully lossless (no field or value is dropped or changed) and typically 40 to 52 percent fewer tokens on large results. Prefer true whenever token or inference cost matters. Default false returns standard indented JSON."New value: +"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."
  3. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / question / example
      Previous value: -"Optional question"New value: +"How do I move forward with this project?"
    • changedInput schema / properties / seed / example
      Previous value: -"optional-seed"New value: +"reading-2f9c1a"
  4. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / compact / description
      Previous value: -"Return the same data in a token-optimized compact shape (minified, with same-shaped arrays encoded columnar) to reduce LLM token cost. Lossless: no fields are dropped. Default false."New value: +"Set true to receive the exact same data in a token-optimized shape that is cheaper for you to read: whitespace is stripped and every array of same-shaped objects is encoded columnar as {\"__cols\":[field names],\"__rows\":[[values]]}, so each field name is sent once instead of once per row. Fully lossless (no field or value is dropped or changed) and typically 40 to 52 percent fewer tokens on large results. Prefer true whenever token or inference cost matters. Default false returns standard indented JSON."
  5. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / compact
      Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "description": "Return the same data in a token-optimized compact shape (minified, with same-shaped arrays encoded columnar) to reduce LLM token cost. Lossless: no fields are dropped. Default false.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  6. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover safety, and the description adds meaningful runtime behavior: the API draws exactly one card per position, requires name and interpretation for each position, supports only up to 10 positions, and provides no pre-generated summary. There is no contradiction with the readOnlyHint.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The definition is front-loaded with a strong first sentence but becomes repetitive, especially the 'Perfect for...' and 'Ideal for...' use-case paragraphs that cover nearly the same ground. Several sentences are helpful, but trimming the redundant audience lists would tighten it without losing information.

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 tool with six parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior clearly: custom positions, card count limits, the absence of a summary, and the mapping of cards to positions. It does not describe error cases or exact response fields, but those gaps are not critical for selecting and invoking the tool.

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%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds value by explaining how the positions parameter drives the draw ('draws the exact number of cards you specify and maps them to your custom positions') and reinforcing that each position requires a name and interpretation.

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 states a specific verb ('build and perform') and resource ('custom tarot spread'), and clearly differentiates from the fixed sibling tools by emphasizing user-defined positions and a configurable 1-10 card count. Even without opening the schema, an agent can distinguish this from post_tarot_spreads_celtic_cross or post_tarot_daily.

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 provides strong usage context: it is 'perfect for' therapists, coaches, app developers, and anyone wanting 'specialized layouts beyond traditional spreads.' However, it never explicitly names alternative tools or states when not to use it, so the when-not guidance is only implied.

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

All Tarot MCP Server by RoxyAPI toolsInspect
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
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: deck list/detail, daily draws, generic draws, four named spreads, custom spreads, and yes/no readings. Even the overlapping draw endpoints are distinguishable by their specific use cases.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names consistently follow a snake_case verb_tarot_resource pattern, which makes the toolset predictable and easy to navigate. The only minor oddity is get_tarot_cards_id, but it does not break the overall convention.

Tool Count5/5

Ten tools is an ideal size for a tarot API: two reference tools, one daily draw, one generic draw, four fixed spreads, one custom spread, and one yes/no tool. Each tool earns its place without overlap or bloat.

Completeness5/5

The surface covers the full tarot domain: browsing cards, retrieving detailed card interpretations, drawing cards, multiple popular spread types, custom spreads, and targeted yes/no guidance. There are no obvious dead ends or critical missing workflows.

Resources