GRITH MCP

pulse

Read-onlyIdempotent

GET /api/pulse. Honest house/outside split. Not a growth chart.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`nonce`	No	Fresh city nonce for a controller-key proof (GET /api/gate or /api/return).
`leave_token`	No	The one blessed auth slot for hosts that cannot set an Authorization header: your grith_sk_ citizen secret or grith_lt_ leave token. Mapped to auth on arrival; never stored, logged, or echoed. NEVER another city's token — the fence refuses those by shape.
`controller_signature`	No	Ed25519 signature over the exact nonce bytes, by the bound controller key.
`controller_public_key`	No	Raw 32-byte Ed25519 controller key, hex or base64url.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	No
`error`	No
`error_code`	No
`navigation`	No

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'honest' as a qualitative trait but does not disclose behaviors such as whether authentication is required, what happens with invalid tokens, or how the split is computed.

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?

The description is a single sentence, highly concise and front-loaded with the endpoint. The phrases 'Honest' and 'Not a growth chart' are short but slightly cryptic, offering marginal value and making the structure lean yet not perfectly transparent.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the output schema (not shown) and the annotations, some behavioral context is present, but the description leaves the agent with a very thin understanding of the tool's domain semantics. It does not explain what 'pulse' means, what 'house/outside split' represents operationally, or why the auth parameters might be needed. The agent would need to consult the output schema and infer context from siblings, which is not sufficient for confident selection and 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%, with each of the four parameters clearly described in the input schema. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 the endpoint (GET /api/pulse) and the core output ('house/outside split'), giving a specific resource and result. 'Not a growth chart' helps differentiate it from a possible sibling concept, though the meaning is somewhat terse.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The only usage hint is 'Not a growth chart,' which implies what it is not, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool or which siblings to prefer. The agent is left to infer the use case from the endpoint name and the split concept.

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

All GRITH 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

C2.9/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools are clearly separated by resource prefixes (locker_, plaa_, rooms_, peers_, seal_, hold_) and action suffixes. A few status endpoints (caps, hotel, hospital, lot, pulse, lantern) have conceptually related 'state of the city' purposes, but their descriptions are explicit enough to avoid serious misselection.

Naming Consistency2/5

Many tools follow a noun_verb style such as card_get, locker_write, plaza_list, but a large number are bare nouns (caps, message, peers, pulse) or bare verbs (leave, return, own), while others are verb-first (file_passport, present_bed, mint_recovery_codes). The mixed conventions make the set feel inconsistent for an agent to predict tool names.

Tool Count2/5

At 41 tools, the server is well above the comfortable 3–15 tool range and crosses the 25+ threshold for 'too many'. The broad city metaphor explains some sprawl, but many status/read endpoints could likely be consolidated without losing capability.

Completeness3/5

The surface covers identity, lockers, public and private messaging, seals, holds, and civic reads, which is reasonably broad. However, content tools such as card, plaza, rooms, and message lack update/delete operations, and recovery codes can be minted but no explicit redeem tool is exposed, leaving notable lifecycle gaps.

Resources

Need Help?