Skip to main content
Glama

pulsenetwork

by com.theaslangroupllc.pulse

longevitypulse

LongevityPulse: Global longevity intelligence API — biomarker interpretation, supplement evidence, personalized protocols, clinical trials, Blue Zone research, WHO country longevity profiles, epigenetic clocks, dieta

Coverage: Global

Endpoints: • biomarker ($0.15): Biomarker interpretation through longevity science lens • supplement-intel ($0.20): Evidence-graded longevity supplement intelligence • protocol-builder ($0.25): Personalized longevity protocol — exercise, nutrition, sleep, supplements • clinical-trials ($0.10): Search active longevity clinical trials globally from ClinicalTrials.gov • blue-zone ($0.10): Blue Zone intelligence — world longevity hotspots deep-dive • country-longevity ($0.12): WHO country longevity profile — life expectancy, HALE, healthcare, initiatives • epigenetic-clock ($0.20): Epigenetic aging clocks — biological age science, testing, and reversal • diet-intel ($0.15): Evidence-graded dietary analysis for longevity and healthspan • longevity-drug ($0.20): Pharmaceutical longevity intelligence — rapamycin, metformin, senolytics • longevity-clinic ($0.12): Global longevity clinic guide — destinations, treatments, red flags • dna ($0.20): Interpret consumer-DNA gene variants for longevity — honest evidence, not hype

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ageNoAge in years — e.g. 35 | 52 | 65
sexNoBiological sex — male | female
dietNoDiet pattern — e.g. Mediterranean | time-restricted eating | fasting mimicking diet | Blue Zone plant-based | MIND diet | caloric restriction | ketogenic | Japanese traditional
drugNoDrug name — e.g. rapamycin | metformin | acarbose | dasatinib | fisetin | senolytics | empagliflozin | semaglutide
langNoResponse language: en|es|fr|de|ja|zh|ko|pt|ar|hi (default: en)
zoneNoBlue Zone or region — e.g. Okinawa | Sardinia | Ikaria | Nicoya | Loma Linda | Blue Zones overview | Hunza | Vilcabamba
goalsNoLongevity goals — e.g. maximize healthspan | cardiovascular health | cognitive longevity | muscle preservation | reverse biological age
topicNoTopic — e.g. GrimAge | DunedinPACE | biological age overview | how to reverse biological aging | epigenetic reprogramming | how to test biological age
valueNoLab result with unit — e.g. 85 mg/dL | 2.1 mg/L | 5.4% | 420 ng/dL (optional — enables personalized assessment)
actionYesWhich endpoint to call. Options: biomarker | supplement-intel | protocol-builder | clinical-trials | blue-zone | country-longevity | epigenetic-clock | diet-intel | longevity-drug | longevity-clinic | dna
budgetNoBudget level — low | moderate | high | $200/month
countryNoCountry name — e.g. Japan | Singapore | Spain | South Korea | Switzerland | Costa Rica | Australia | United States | India | Nigeria
compoundNoCompound name — e.g. NMN | NR | berberine | spermidine | urolithin A | fisetin | quercetin | alpha-ketoglutarate | resveratrol | taurine
variantsNoComma-separated gene/variant identifiers or rsIDs — e.g. APOE-e4,MTHFR-C677T,FOXO3 (up to 8 per request; not raw genome files)
biomarkerNoBiomarker name — e.g. ApoB | hs-CRP | HbA1c | testosterone | IGF-1 | homocysteine | Lp(a) | ferritin | vitamin D | DHEA-S
conditionNoCondition or intervention — e.g. aging | rapamycin | metformin | NMN | senolytics | caloric restriction | Alzheimer prevention
treatmentNoTreatment of interest — e.g. stem cell therapy | NAD+ IV | peptide therapy | hyperbaric oxygen | plasmapheresis | ozone therapy
conditionsNoHealth conditions — e.g. type 2 diabetes | hypertension | none
recruiting_onlyNoShow only recruiting trials (default: true)

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds useful behavioral context such as 'Evidence-graded' supplement intelligence, 'from ClinicalTrials.gov', 'WHO country longevity profiles', and per-request pricing. However, it omits critical behavioral details like authentication requirements, output format, rate limits, or error behavior.

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 'Coverage: Global' up front, then a bulleted list of endpoints with prices and concise explanations. It is longer than a bare minimum, but each line adds distinct endpoint information and the format makes it scannable. No redundant filler sentences.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a multi-endpoint tool with 19 parameters, the description gives a good high-level overview but does not map endpoints to the parameters each expects (e.g., which params are needed for 'protocol-builder' vs 'dna'). The schema covers parameter meanings, but the description lacks return-value information and endpoint-specific usage logic, leaving some inference to the agent.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level semantics beyond listing endpoint names; it does, however, mention endpoint-specific outputs ('Evidence-graded', 'personalized protocol') that help contextualize some parameters. The schema already provides detailed parameter descriptions, so no significant gap exists.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a 'Global longevity intelligence API' and enumerates 11 specific endpoints such as 'biomarker interpretation', 'supplement intelligence', and 'clinical trials'. This makes the tool's purpose and scope immediately obvious and distinguishes it from the many other 'pulse' siblings by domain.

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 lists endpoints with one-line descriptions, which implies when to use each action (e.g., use 'clinical-trials' to search trials). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions where another sibling tool would be more appropriate.

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