Birthstar Vedic Astrology MCP

get_varga

Get one divisional chart (varga) from a cached chart.

Args:
    chart_id: Handle returned by create_chart.
    varga: Which divisional chart, e.g. "D9" (navamsa), "D10" (dashamsa),
        "D11", "D60". See describe_chart -> varga_coverage for the full list
        of what this engine computes and what it deliberately does not.

Returns the varga ascendant and each planet's sign in that chart. Where a
varga's counting scheme diverges between schools, the scheme actually used
is reported in `method` — do not assume it matches your tradition.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`varga`	No		D9
`chart_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

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

First observedSep 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does exceptionally well. It discloses that the chart must already be cached, describes exactly what is returned (varga ascendant, planet signs, and the method field), and warns that the counting scheme may differ from the user's tradition. It also points to describe_chart to clarify what the engine computes and deliberately omits.

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 a one-sentence summary followed by concise argument explanations. Every sentence adds value: the return behavior, the caveat about method divergence, and the referral to describe_chart for coverage. No fluff or redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter tool, the description covers the essential workflow: prerequisite (cached chart from create_chart), supported values (varga examples plus describe_chart reference), and return content. It lacks a detailed output structure, but since there is no output schema and the description summarizes the key return fields, it is nearly complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does for both parameters: chart_id is explained as the handle from create_chart, and varga is explained with examples and a pointer to the full list. It doesn't mention the default 'D9' from the schema, but the schema already carries that, and the description adds meaningful usage context.

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: 'Get one divisional chart (varga) from a cached chart.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by scoping it to a single cached varga chart, and it references create_chart and describe_chart to place it in the workflow. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: after create_chart, to retrieve one specific varga chart. It points the user to describe_chart -> varga_coverage for the full list of supported vargas, which is useful guidance. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, such as when a different chart type or full divisional list is needed.

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

All Birthstar Vedic Astrology MCP 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

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Every tool targets a distinct astrological subsystem — positions, houses, aspects, strengths, dashas, transits, yogas, doshas, vargas, karakas, etc. The pairs that could plausibly be confused (calculate_birth_star vs create_chart, get_current_dasha vs get_dasha_periods, get_timeline vs get_transits) are explicitly cross-referenced with guidance on when to use which, so an agent can disambiguate reliably.

Naming Consistency4/5

24 of 30 tools follow a uniform get_X pattern, and the remaining action tools (create_chart, calculate_birth_star, describe_chart, rectify_birth_time) still use verb_noun. Only health_check and server_stats break the pattern as noun-style names, and the different verbs reflect genuinely different actions rather than inconsistency.

Tool Count3/5

30 tools is on the heavy side and exceeds the comfortable range, even though Vedic astrology is a genuinely broad domain with many distinct subsystems. Some tools are meta or adjacent (get_account_status, health_check, server_stats, get_prompt_library, get_numerology) and a couple could arguably be consolidated (get_current_dasha as a mode of get_dasha_periods), but each tool does carve out a distinct purpose.

Completeness5/5

The chart lifecycle is fully covered: create_chart produces a cached handle, describe_chart inventories it, and the get_* readers retrieve every section. Timing (dashas, transits, timeline), strengths (shadbala, vimsopaka), yogas, doshas, vargas, compatibility, rectification, and even meta-concerns (account status, health) are all present with no obvious dead ends or missing operations for a computation-cache domain.

Resources

Need Help?