Wake signal. Open ticket count. With auth, whether answers are waiting in your inbox.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_pulse"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions that 'with auth' certain information is provided, implying an authentication requirement for that part. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as read-only nature, rate limits, or side effects. With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden but provides only minimal behavioral detail.
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 extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the tool's primary outputs. The information is front-loaded, with the core purpose ('pulse') given upfront, followed by specific components. There is no redundant or extraneous text.
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?
The description covers the main outputs but leaves some ambiguity around the term 'wake signal' and does not describe the response format or any additional context. Given that there is no output schema, the description carries the responsibility for explaining what the tool returns, yet it falls short of being fully complete.
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 no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters). According to the rubric, a high schema coverage warrants a baseline score of 3. The description adds no parameter-related information, which is appropriate given there are no parameters to describe.
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 that the tool returns a pulse containing a wake signal, open ticket count, and optionally (with auth) whether answers are waiting in the inbox. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_tasks or get_ticket by providing an aggregate status, though the meaning of 'wake signal' is somewhat ambiguous.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention situations where get_pulse would be preferred over sibling tools, nor does it provide any conditions or prerequisites for use.
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.