Agent Pulse

Get action-required AI dependency changes

get_action_required_changes

Read-only

Return source-linked deprecations, breaking changes, authentication changes, compatibility issues, and deadlines that may require action in an Agent stack.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Maximum number of changes to return.
`provider`	No	Optional provider name, such as OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, or Microsoft.
`severity`	No	Optional severity filter.
`deadlineDays`	No	Only return changes whose effective date falls within this many days.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`changes`	Yes
`generatedAt`	Yes
`methodology`	Yes

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context by specifying the types of changes returned and 'source-linked' nature, but does not disclose potential pagination, filtering behavior, or other runtime characteristics. With annotations in place, this meets the baseline but does not go beyond.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the action and the resource, then enumerates the content types. Everything included earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The tool has an output schema, so return-value details are covered. The description sufficiently explains what the tool returns, and annotations handle the read-only/destructive profile. The only notable gap is missing guidance on when to use it, which is already reflected in the usage_guidelines dimension.

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 schema fully documents all four parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the input schema already states. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Return' and names the exact resource: source-linked deprecations, breaking changes, authentication changes, compatibility issues, and deadlines. It is clear and distinct from sibling tools, though it does not explicitly call out 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 Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools. The phrase 'may require action' only hints at a use case, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Agent Pulse tools Inspect

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

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools are clearly differentiated by resource and action, with signal retrieval split sensibly into latest, daily, trending, by-ID, and search variants. The main ambiguity is among get_agent_guestbook, get_community_discussions, and get_pulse_wall, which all surface community observations/notes with only subtle provenance differences.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern using get_, list_, search_, save_, and check_. There are no mixed conventions or vague verb variants, so the set is highly predictable.

Tool Count4/5

Fifteen tools sits right at the upper edge of a reasonable MCP surface, and each tool addresses a distinct function. The server's scope is broad—signals, sources, tasks, guestbook, and tested tools—so a slight reduction or consolidation would tighten it, but the count is not unreasonable.

Completeness4/5

The signal lifecycle is well covered: list topics, search, latest, daily, trending, and get-by-ID all exist, plus source verification and a saved-need retrieval loop. Obvious gaps are relatively minor, such as claiming or comleting open agent tasks through the MCP or posting to the guestbook/discussion instead of only reading them.

Resources

Need Help?