Skip to main content
Glama

pulsenetwork

by com.theaslangroupllc.pulse
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

petpulse

PetPulse: Global pet health and care intelligence API. AI-synthesized veterinary symptom triage, breed selection guides, pet nutrition analysis, medication safety (drug interactions, toxin exposure), senior pet

Coverage: Global

Endpoints: • symptoms ($0.10): Symptom triage • research ($0.10): Veterinary research synthesis • nutrition ($0.10): Condition-based nutrition guidance • medication ($0.08): Veterinary drug reference • breed ($0.08): Breed health and care guide • cost ($0.08): Vet procedure cost estimator • insurance ($0.10): Pet insurance comparison • senior ($0.10): Senior pet care • toxin ($0.10): Pet toxicity assessment • travel ($0.08): Pet travel guide • behavior ($0.10): Pet behavior and training guide • recall-check ($0.10): Pet food recall check

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ageNoPet age (e.g. 8 years)
drugNoDrug name (e.g. carprofen, metronidazole, apoquel)
langNoResponse language (e.g. es, de, fr)
breedNoBreed name (e.g. golden-retriever, french-bulldog, maine-coon)
issueNoBehavior issue (e.g. separation-anxiety, leash-reactivity, litter-box-avoidance, destructive-chewing, aggression)
topicNoResearch topic (e.g. joint-supplements, omega-3-benefits)
actionYesWhich endpoint to call. Options: symptoms | research | nutrition | medication | breed | cost | insurance | senior | toxin | travel | behavior | recall-check
originNoOrigin country (default US)
regionNoRegion
weightNoPet weight (e.g. 65lbs)
productNoPet food brand or product name to check
speciesNoAnimal species
symptomsNoComma-separated symptoms (e.g. lethargy,vomiting)
conditionNoHealth condition (e.g. pancreatitis, kidney-disease, obesity)
procedureNoProcedure name
substanceNoSubstance ingested
conditionsNoExisting conditions
destinationNoDestination
amount_ingestedNoAmount ingested

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / action / description
      Previous value: -"Which endpoint to call. Options: symptoms | research | nutrition | medication | breed | cost | insurance | senior | toxin | travel | behavior"New value: +"Which endpoint to call. Options: symptoms | research | nutrition | medication | breed | cost | insurance | senior | toxin | travel | behavior | recall-check"
    • changedInput schema / properties / action / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "symptoms",
-  "research",
-  "nutrition",
-  "medication",
-  "breed",
-  "cost",
-  "insurance",
-  "senior",
-  "toxin",
-  "travel",
-  "behavior"
-]New value: +[
+  "symptoms",
+  "research",
+  "nutrition",
+  "medication",
+  "breed",
+  "cost",
+  "insurance",
+  "senior",
+  "toxin",
+  "travel",
+  "behavior",
+  "recall-check"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / product
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Pet food brand or product name to check",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'AI-synthesized' content and per-endpoint pricing, but fails to disclose critical traits for a health-related tool: whether it is informational only, requires API keys, has rate limits, or what the response structure is. Safety disclaimers are noticeably absent.

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 one-sentence summary followed by a clean, scannable endpoint list with prices. It is slightly verbose due to pricing details, but each line earns its place by clarifying endpoint purposes. Overall, it is efficient and front-loaded.

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 tool's complexity (12 endpoints, 19 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It does not map endpoints to their required parameters, provide usage examples, or describe return values. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameter meanings, but the missing endpoint-parameter mapping leaves a significant gap for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100% for all 19 parameters, so the schema already provides parameter descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of each action endpoint (e.g., 'Symptom triage', 'Pet toxicity assessment'), which helps agents map the action enum to appropriate use cases. However, it does not specify which parameters are required for each endpoint.

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 PetPulse as a global pet health and care intelligence API with a comprehensive list of endpoints (symptoms, nutrition, medication, breed, etc.), which distinguishes it from sibling pulse tools by domain. However, it is a multi-purpose API rather than a single specific verb+resource, so it lacks the crispness of a focused single-action tool.

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 pet health use cases through its endpoint list but never explicitly states when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references, leaving the agent to infer usage from the endpoint names and 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
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources