Skip to main content
Glama

pulsenetwork

by com.theaslangroupllc.pulse

glowpulse

GlowPulse: Skincare and K-beauty intelligence: ingredient lookups, myth-vs-fact conflict checks, product decoding, pregnancy-safe and fungal-acne screening, dupe finding, routine building, and greenwashing claims checks. Grounded in EU CosIng, CIR/PubChem and Korean regulatory context.

Coverage: Global (EU, Korea, Japan, US regulatory layers)

Endpoints: • ingredient-lookup ($0.05): Skincare ingredient checker • conflict-check ($0.10): Routine ingredient-conflict checker • product-decode ($0.15): Ingredient list decoder • pregnancy-safe ($0.10): Pregnancy/nursing skincare safety screen • fungal-acne-check ($0.08): Fungal-acne (Malassezia) safety checker • dupe-finder ($0.15): K-beauty and skincare dupe finder • routine-builder ($0.20): Full skincare routine builder • k-beauty-compare ($0.12): Korean vs Western actives comparison • claims-check ($0.12): Greenwashing / marketing-claim detector • price-per-active ($0.08): Price-per-active value analysis • sensitive-skin ($0.10): Sensitive-skin irritant/allergen screen • sale-timing ($0.08): Beauty retailer sale-timing brief

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
langNoen | ko | ja | de | fr | es | pt
actionYesWhich endpoint to call. Options: ingredient-lookup | conflict-check | product-decode | pregnancy-safe | fungal-acne-check | dupe-finder | routine-builder | k-beauty-compare | claims-check | price-per-active | sensitive-skin | sale-timing
claimsNoComma-separated marketing claims
regionNoUS | EU | KR | JP
concernsNoComma-separated, e.g. acne,hyperpigmentation,aging
productsNoComma-separated product names, 1-4
retailerNoSephora | Ulta | Olive Young | YesStyle | Stylevana | iHerb | all
inci_nameNoINCI ingredient name, e.g. Niacinamide, Retinol, Sodium Hyaluronate
skin_typeNodry | oily | combination | normal | sensitive
active_nameNoe.g. retinol vs bakuchiol, AHA vs PDRN
budget_tierNodrugstore | mid | prestige | mixed
ingredientsNoComma-separated ingredients/actives, e.g. retinol,vitamin c,niacinamide
active_focusNoactive_focus
product_nameNoproduct_name
ingredients_pastedNoFull pasted INCI ingredient list text — recommended for best accuracy
ingredients_or_productNoingredients_or_product

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It adds useful context like per-endpoint pricing ($0.05–$0.20) and grounding in EU CosIng, CIR/PubChem, and Korean regulatory context. However, it does not disclose output format, error behavior, rate limits, or other operational traits, leaving significant behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 well-structured with a summary line, a coverage line, and a clear endpoint list. The length is justified by the 12 endpoints, and information is front-loaded. It is concise given the range of capabilities, though the endpoint list could be seen as lengthy.

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 is complex with 16 parameters and 12 actions, but the description does not explain which parameters apply to which endpoints, nor does it detail output or response structures. With no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves critical gaps for correct invocation, such as parameter-action mapping and expected return values.

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%, though some parameter descriptions are placeholders (e.g., 'active_focus', 'product_name'). The tool description does not add parameter-level meaning or map parameters to endpoints; it merely lists endpoints and prices. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description does not exceed that baseline.

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 explicitly identifies the tool as 'Skincare and K-beauty intelligence' and enumerates 12 specific endpoints (e.g., 'ingredient-lookup', 'conflict-check') with clear action verbs. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by domain and lists concrete capabilities, meeting the bar for a specific verb+resource and sibling differentiation.

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 implies usage for skincare-related queries but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No alternative tools are mentioned, and exclusions are absent. The domain specificity offers implicit guidance, but it lacks clear usage criteria or exclusions.

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