Skip to main content
Glama

pulsenetwork

by com.theaslangroupllc.pulse

cyberpulse

CyberPulse: Global cybersecurity intelligence API — CVE briefs, vulnerability scanning, CISA KEV, OSINT, threat intelligence, ransomware tracking, breach checks, compliance gap analysis, dark web monitoring, and

Coverage: Global

Endpoints: • cve-check ($0.02): CVE fact check — NVD + CISA KEV + OSV joined, deterministic • cve-brief ($0.10): CVE deep-dive — CVSS, exploitation status, patch urgency, remediation • vuln-scan ($0.12): Vulnerability scan — all known CVEs for any software + version • cisa-kev ($0.08): CISA KEV — Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog search • osint ($0.15): OSINT — domain and IP intelligence for authorized defensive use • threat-intel ($0.20): Threat intelligence — global threat actors and campaigns by sector and region • ransomware-intel ($0.20): Ransomware intelligence — group profiles, victim patterns, TTPs, defensive playbook • breach-check ($0.15): Breach check — domain breach history and credential exposure intelligence • compliance-gap ($0.25): Compliance gap analysis — global security frameworks (SOC2, ISO27001, GDPR, NIS2, PDPA, POPIA, LGPD...) • dark-web-monitor ($0.20): Dark web monitor — brand and domain underground intelligence (ethical OSINT) • attack-surface ($0.25): Attack surface assessment — external risk analysis for authorized defensive use

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoCVE identifier, e.g. CVE-2021-44228
cveNoCVE ID — e.g. CVE-2024-3400 | CVE-2023-44487 | CVE-2021-44228
daysNoEntries added in last N days (default: 90)
langNoResponse language: en|es|fr|de|ja|zh|ko|pt|ar|hi (default: en)
brandNoBrand name or domain — e.g. acme.com | MyCompany
groupNoRansomware group name — e.g. LockBit | ALPHV | Cl0p | RansomHub (omit for landscape overview)
actionYesWhich endpoint to call. Options: cve-check | cve-brief | vuln-scan | cisa-kev | osint | threat-intel | ransomware-intel | breach-check | compliance-gap | dark-web-monitor | attack-surface
domainNoDomain to check — e.g. example.com
filterNoransomware | recent (alternative to vendor search)
regionNoRegion — e.g. North America | Europe | Southeast Asia | MENA | Sub-Saharan Africa | Global (default: Global)
sectorNoIndustry sector — e.g. healthcare | finance | SaaS | e-commerce
targetNoDomain or public IP — e.g. example.com | 8.8.8.8
vendorNoVendor/product name — e.g. Cisco | Ivanti | Microsoft | Palo Alto | Fortinet
companyNoCompany name — e.g. Acme Corporation
versionNoVersion string — e.g. 2.14.0 | 3.0.8
industryNoSector — e.g. healthcare | finance | energy | manufacturing | government | education
softwareNoSoftware name — e.g. Apache Log4j | OpenSSL | Spring Boot | Ivanti Connect Secure
ecosystemNoPackage ecosystem — npm | PyPI | Maven | Go | crates.io | NuGet
frameworkNoCompliance framework

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It adds useful information such as per-request pricing, 'deterministic' behavior for cve-check, and authorization warnings for OSINT/attack-surface. However, it does not mention response formats, rate limits, authentication requirements, or side effects of the scans. The cost and deterministic hints are valuable but not comprehensive.

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 description is a structured bullet list that is reasonably concise given the 11 endpoints, and each item includes a short, informative phrase. However, the opening line is incomplete ('and ' then 'Coverage: Global'), and the 'Coverage: Global' line is unnecessary and awkward. The use of pricing in each bullet is extra content that may not be essential for tool selection, adding clutter.

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?

The tool has high complexity: 11 actions, 19 parameters, and no output schema. The description explains what each endpoint does but does not specify which parameters are required or applicable for each action, nor does it clarify possible parameter combinations (e.g., 'id' vs 'cve'). With no output schema and no per-action parameter guidance, the description is insufficient for an agent to confidently construct correct invocations.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 19 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level semantics beyond listing endpoint purposes; it does not explicitly map parameters to specific endpoints (e.g., which params are required for vuln-scan). Since the schema already provides strong per-parameter descriptions, the tool description adds little new parameter meaning.

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 clearly identifies this as a global cybersecurity intelligence API and enumerates 11 specific endpoints with concise verb+resource descriptions (e.g., 'cve-check: CVE fact check', 'vuln-scan: Vulnerability scan'). This distinguishes it from sibling 'pulse' tools that likely target other domains. However, the overall purpose is broad and the opening sentence is truncated ('and ' plus 'Coverage: Global'), which slightly reduces clarity.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description provides endpoint-level descriptions that imply when to use each action, but it does not explicitly compare against alternatives or state when to choose this tool over siblings. Some usage constraints are present ('authorized defensive use' for OSINT and attack-surface), but there is no guidance on how to select among the 11 endpoints based on the user's request. The use cases are clear only by inference from the endpoint descriptions.

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

All pulsenetwork 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

B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Each tool has a unique domain prefix (e.g., airdroppulse, alphapulse, arbipulse) making them mostly distinguishable at a glance. A few adjacent verticals like careerpulse vs talentpulse or marketpulse vs dealpulse have overlapping themes, but their descriptions clarify the distinct focus. The utility tools (catalog_search, discover, get_openapi_spec, x402_troubleshoot) are also clearly distinct in role. However, the sheer number of similar 'pulse' names could still cause misselection without reading descriptions.

Naming Consistency4/5

The dominant naming convention is `<domain>pulse` (e.g., climatepulse, cryptopulse, edupulse), which is highly consistent and predictable. Exceptions like catalog_search, discover, get_openapi_spec, x402_troubleshoot, and stateedge break the pattern, but these are few and serve obvious utility purposes. Overall, the convention is clear and easily learnable.

Tool Count2/5

With 80 tools, the server presents an extremely large and potentially overwhelming surface. While each tool represents a distinct intelligence vertical and navigation aids exist (catalog_search, discover, get_openapi_spec), the count far exceeds the typical 3-15 range for coherent agent use and even the 'heavy' 16-25 range. The burden of selecting the correct vertical from 80 options is significant, despite clear naming.

Completeness5/5

The server offers an exceptionally broad and deep coverage of domains, from finance and health to agriculture and gaming. Each vertical includes multiple endpoints that address core operations for its domain, such as search, analysis, comparisons, deterministic checks, and even action-oriented tools like letter generators and physical mail. The presence of free discovery and troubleshooting tools fills potential gaps, leaving no obvious dead ends in the overall tool surface.

Resources