get_pulseReturn live, PII-free operational stats for rye.dev: recent Core Web Vitals p75s, 30-day pageviews, trailing-30d uptime %, top-reacted pages, and the last deploy. Same data the homepage pulse strip shows.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| pulse | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the data is 'live' and 'PII-free,' and it lists the specific metrics returned, giving a clear picture of what the operation does without hidden side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and resource, followed by a concise list of data contents. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter read-only stats tool with an output schema present, the description fully covers what the agent needs: what it returns, that it is live and privacy-safe, and that it mirrors the homepage pulse data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty properties). The description adds no parameter details because there are none to explain; the baseline of 4 applies here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Return live, PII-free operational stats for rye.dev' and enumerates exactly what data is included, which distinguishes it from sibling content-retrieval tools like get_post or get_about.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context by noting 'Same data the homepage pulse strip shows,' which implies this is for site-wide stats, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it. Since all siblings are content/page-specific tools, the scope is reasonably clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource (about, now, post, project, pulse, reading, posts, projects, search results, contact, newsletter) and action (get, list, search, submit, subscribe). The two search tools explicitly differentiate by exact substring vs semantic vector search, removing any ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: get_* for single item retrieval, list_* for collections, search_* for search, and submit_*/subscribe_* for actions. No mixed conventions or style deviations.
With 12 tools, the server is well-scoped for a portfolio site. It covers content access (posts, projects, reading), personal info (about, now), live stats, search, and user interactions (contact, newsletter) without being bloated or sparse.
The tool surface fully covers the public-facing domain of a portfolio site: all content types are retrievable in both list and detail forms, search is provided via two complementary methods, and transactional actions for contact and newsletter subscription are included. No obvious gaps or dead ends exist for the intended read-oriented purpose.