Skip to main content
Glama

pulsenetwork

by com.theaslangroupllc.pulse

policypulse

PolicyPulse: PolicyPulse — global legislative intelligence: US Congress, EU (EUR-Lex), UK Parliament, India, Brazil, Australia, and 50+ jurisdictions. Bill summaries, sector impact, passage probability, treaty ana

Coverage: Global

Endpoints: • register ($0.02): Federal Register search — rules, proposed rules, notices, open comment periods • legislation ($0.15): Legislation — plain English translation of any bill globally • impact ($0.15): Impact — who is affected and what they must do • scenario ($0.20): Scenarios — if/then sector impact modeling • monitor ($0.10): Monitor — weekly/monthly legislative activity brief • state ($0.10): State — legislation across all 50 US states via Open States • compliance ($0.15): Compliance — what to do after a law passes • regulation ($0.15): Federal regulation — agency rules via Federal Register • compare ($0.15): Compare — cross-jurisdiction policy comparison • calendar ($0.10): Calendar — upcoming regulatory deadlines and effective dates • translate ($0.08): Translate — decode any legal or regulatory text into plain English • court ($0.15): Court decision intelligence • treaty ($0.10): International treaty and trade-agreement intelligence

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qNoSearch term
lawNoLaw or regulation (e.g. 'OSHA heat stress standard', 'ADA', 'California CCPA', 'FTC non-compete ban')
langNoResponse language (ISO 639-1 code)
modeNosearch | open-comments
textNoLegal or regulatory text to decode (up to 4,000 chars; use POST for longer text)
typeNoRule | Proposed Rule | Notice | all
courtNoCourt (scotus, cjeu, all, etc.)
limitNo1-20, default 8
stateNo2-letter state code (TX) or comma-separated list (CA,TX,NY)
topicNotopic
actionNoaction
agencyNoFilter by agency
periodNoperiod
sectorNoSector focus (or 'all')
contextNocontext
partiesNoParties involved
triggerNoThe development to model (e.g. 'federal $15 minimum wage passes', 'FTC non-compete ban upheld', 'California single-payer healthcare enacted')
lookaheadNoDays ahead to surface deadlines
entity_typeNoFilter to specific entity type (e.g. 'employer under 50 employees')
jurisdictionNojurisdiction
jurisdictionsNoComma-separated jurisdictions (e.g. 'US,EU,UK,Canada,Australia')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / agency / description
      Previous value: -"Federal agency (EPA|FDA|OSHA|FTC|CFPB|SEC|DOL|USDA|HHS|FCC|etc)"New value: +"Filter by agency"
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "1-20, default 8",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / mode
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "search | open-comments",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / q / description
      Previous value: -"Bill name or topic (e.g. 'NLRB joint employer rule', 'ACA employer mandate', 'EU AI Act')"New value: +"Search term"
    • changedInput schema / properties / type / description
      Previous value: -"Type (fta, climate, tax, all, etc.)"New value: +"Rule | Proposed Rule | Notice | all"
  2. First observed

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
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 behavior. It provides a detailed list of endpoints (register, legislation, impact, etc.) with pricing, which gives some insight into the tool's operations. However, it does not reveal output formats, limitations, authentication needs, or how parameters affect behavior, leaving significant gaps for such a complex tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is overlong and not front-loaded effectively. It opens with a redundant 'PolicyPulse: PolicyPulse' and then lists 13 endpoints in a dense bullet list, which is excessive for an agent to parse quickly. The structure is organized but the length and promotional tone reduce its efficiency.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (21 parameters, no required fields, no output schema), the description provides a broad capability overview but lacks integration with the parameter schema. It does not provide examples, typical workflows, or guidance on which endpoints/parameters to use for common queries. The endpoint list adds context but leaves the agent unclear on how to actually invoke the tool correctly.

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, so all 21 parameters are individually described. The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it mentions endpoint names but does not map them to specific parameters like mode or action. Thus, the schema already provides the necessary semantics, earning the baseline 3, but the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies the tool as 'global legislative intelligence' covering multiple jurisdictions and lists numerous endpoints such as legislation, impact, scenario, etc. However, it lacks a single specific verb+resource and appears to bundle many distinct sub-operations, making the core purpose diffuse. The truncated 'treaty ana' further obscures completeness.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only enumerates capabilities and pricing, but does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or how it differs from sibling tools like legalpulse or compliancepulse. The agent is left to infer usage from the broad 'global legislative intelligence' label.

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