pulsenetwork-mcp

prospectpulse

Identify mineral deposits and assess exploration potential using geochemical anomaly analysis, jurisdiction entry-risk, and satellite availability data.

Instructions

ProspectPulse: Global mineral and resource exploration intelligence. USGS MRDS deposit inventory, geochemical anomaly analysis, satellite scene availability, jurisdiction entry-risk, social license risk, critical mi

Coverage: Global

Endpoints: • mineral-potential ($0.10): Mineral prospectivity assessment • deposit-intel ($0.10): Mineral deposit intelligence • critical-minerals-scan ($0.10): Critical minerals country endowment scan • jurisdiction-entry ($0.10): Exploration jurisdiction entry-risk assessment • satellite-availability ($0.10): Free satellite scene availability + remote sensing guide • geochemical-anomaly ($0.10): USGS geochemical anomaly characterization • social-license-risk ($0.10): Social license risk assessment • commodity-supply-intel ($0.10): Commodity supply/demand intelligence • oil-gas-basin ($0.10): Oil & gas basin analysis • exploration-brief ($0.10): Comprehensive exploration target brief (premium)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`action`	Yes	Which endpoint to call. Options: mineral-potential \| deposit-intel \| critical-minerals-scan \| jurisdiction-entry \| satellite-availability \| geochemical-anomaly \| social-license-risk \| commodity-supply-intel \| oil-gas-basin \| exploration-brief
`lang`	No	Response language (ISO 639-1) \| en \| es \| fr \| pt \| ru \| zh \| id \| ar
`region`	No	Named geological region \| Carlin Trend Nevada \| Atacama Desert \| Abitibi Greenstone Belt \| Zambia Copper Belt \| Pilbara WA
`lat`	No	Latitude (decimal degrees)
`lon`	No	Longitude (decimal degrees)
`commodity`	No	Target commodity \| gold \| copper \| lithium \| nickel \| cobalt \| REE \| uranium \| silver \| zinc
`deposit`	No	Deposit or mine name \| Escondida \| Oyu Tolgoi \| Kibali \| Grasberg \| Olympic Dam \| Thacker Pass \| Jadar \| Cobre Panama
`country`	No	Country or region \| DRC \| Chile \| Indonesia \| Australia \| Greenland \| Kazakhstan \| Philippines \| Argentina \| Canada \| Zambia \| Zimbabwe \| Gu
`elements`	No	Comma-separated elements \| Au,As,Sb \| Cu,Mo,Au \| Ni,Co,Cr \| Li,Cs,Rb
`location`	No	Location \| Peru Cajamarca \| Pebble Alaska \| West Papua Indonesia \| Ring of Fire Ontario \| Northern BC Canada \| Limpopo South Africa \| Oaxaca
`project`	No	Optional project name \| Conga Mine \| Pebble Mine \| Ajax Mine \| New Prosperity
`basin`	No	Basin or region \| Permian Basin \| Santos Basin Brazil \| Rovuma Basin \| East African Rift \| Cooper Basin Australia \| Tarim Basin \| Barents Se

Tool Definition Quality

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses pricing ($0.10 per call) and global coverage, but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or rate limits. The description lists endpoints but does not explain data freshness or limitations.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is verbose with a long list of endpoints and examples. While structured with bullet points, it could be more concise by focusing on core functionality and using the schema for parameter details.

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?

The description enumerates all endpoints and gives examples, but does not specify which parameters are required for each action. No output schema or return value explanation is provided. Adequate but not comprehensive for a tool with 12 parameters.

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 coverage is 100% with all parameters described. The description does not add additional semantic value beyond the schema, so baseline score 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 clearly states it provides 'Global mineral and resource exploration intelligence' and lists specific endpoints. This differentiates it from sibling 'pulse' tools which cover other domains. However, it lacks a concise verb+resource statement.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. While the domain specialization is implied by the name and description, no when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions are provided.

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

Install Server

Latest Blog Posts

Lightport: Open-Sourcing Glama's AI Gateway
By punkpeye on April 27, 2026.
open source
OpenAI
Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
By punkpeye on April 3, 2026.
mcp
The Hackers Who Tracked My Sleep Cycle
By punkpeye on March 26, 2026.
security

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/GTCC777/pulsenetwork-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server