NetPulse

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: ping and traceroute for connectivity tests, interface diagnostics, config retrieval, baseline comparison, and interface restart. No overlap in functionality.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., ping_device, run_traceroute, check_interface), with no mixing of styles or vague verbs.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for network diagnostic and management tasks. Each tool serves a distinct purpose without unnecessary bloat or gaps.
Completeness4/5
The set covers core network operations: connectivity test, path tracing, interface diagnostics, config retrieval, metric comparison, and a management action. Missing features like device listing or interface statistics are minor gaps for the intended domain.
Average 3.8/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored. Lowest: 3.1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states it 'get detailed diagnostic information' without mentioning side effects, permissions required, or what happens if device is unreachable. Vague.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loads the purpose, and uses a clear structure with Args list. However, it could be slightly more succinct.
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 output schema exists, return value explanation is not needed. But for a 2-parameter tool with no usage guidance, the description is moderately complete but lacks behavioral details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds value by explaining both parameters: 'device: Hostname of the network device. interface: Interface name (e.g., GigabitEthernet0/0).' This provides clear format and examples.
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 the tool's purpose: 'Get detailed diagnostic information for a specific interface.' The verb 'get' and resource 'interface' are specific, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ping_device or run_traceroute.
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 like ping_device or restart_interface. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite conditions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the high-level operation, omitting details like what happens on missing device, invalid metric, or whether the operation is read-only. The term 'rolling baseline' is not explained.
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?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence for purpose and three short lines for parameters. No extraneous text, every sentence adds value.
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 existence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values, but it should clarify what 'compare' means (e.g., difference, percentage). The description is minimal and assumes agent knowledge of baselines.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by adding semantics: device is 'hostname', metric lists allowed values (cpu_percent, memory_percent), window has default and display purpose. This adds needed meaning beyond the schema's type-only fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: comparing a device's current metric value against its rolling baseline. It uses a specific verb ('compare') and resource ('metric value against baseline'), and is distinct from sibling tools like ping_device or get_device_config.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or situations where the tool is applicable or not.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description labels the traceroute as 'simulated,' hinting it may not be a real network operation, but provides no further behavioral details (e.g., permissions, side effects, rate limits, failure modes). With no annotations, the agent gets minimal transparency beyond the word 'simulated.'
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?
Extremely concise: one-line purpose followed by parameter docs. Every sentence is necessary. No verbosity, properly front-loaded.
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?
For a two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers basic purpose and params. However, it omits the output format/behavior (even though output schema exists, the description could still hint at what to expect), and the 'simulated' aspect is not explained. Minor gaps prevent full completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds substantial meaning to both parameters: 'target' is clarified as 'IP address or hostname,' and 'max_hops' gets range '(1-64, default 30).' Since the input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), the description fully compensates for the missing semantic information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Run a simulated traceroute to a network device,' specifying the action (run), resource (traceroute), and scope (network device). The term 'simulated' adds a distinguishing nuance. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, the purpose is specific and unambiguous.
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 (e.g., ping_device, check_interface). There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or conditions that favor traceroute over other diagnostic tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool pings and returns statistics, but does not mention prerequisites (e.g., network access, permissions) or potential side effects (e.g., timeouts). The core behavior is clear but not fully transparent.
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?
The description is concise with two sentences plus parameter explanations. It is front-loaded with the purpose and contains no superfluous words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, output schema present, no annotations), the description adequately covers purpose, parameter semantics, and expected output (round-trip stats). No critical information is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining the 'target' parameter as an IP address or hostname and 'count' with a range and default. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's type and default values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool pings a network device and returns round-trip time statistics. It uses a specific verb ('Ping') and resource ('network device'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like run_traceroute or check_interface.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as run_traceroute or check_interface. The description focuses on parameters but lacks context on selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It correctly states 'read-only', but does not mention authentication requirements, error handling, rate limits, or impact on the device. The read-only claim is the only behavioral insight, which is sufficient but not comprehensive.
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?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence for purpose plus two bullet-point parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value; no filler. The main action is front-loaded.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity and the presence of an output schema (which likely documents return structure), the description is nearly complete. It covers the core operation and parameter semantics. It omits potential error scenarios or prerequisites, but for a read-only retrieval tool, the missing details are minor.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the tool description compensates by explaining each parameter: 'device' as hostname, 'section' with examples ('bgp', 'ospf') and behavior (returns full config if empty). This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare types and titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'running configuration of a network device'. It explicitly marks the operation as 'read-only', which distinguishes it from mutating siblings like restart_interface. The domain (network device) is precise.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains parameters (device and section) and their behavior (e.g., section examples, default full config), but does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like compare_baseline or check_interface. Usage context is implied by the tool's purpose, but no when-not or alternative references are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses that it is a state-modifying action, requires confirmation, and details the dual behavior (impact analysis vs. execution) based on the confirm parameter.
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?
The description is well-structured with a clear header, warnings, and a parameter list. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy, making it efficient for an AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (3 parameters, no annotations), the description is highly complete. It covers purpose, behavior, parameters, and output (impact analysis), even though an output schema exists. No gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description thoroughly explains all three parameters: device, interface, and confirm. It adds meaning by stating the interface format example and that confirm must be explicitly true to execute.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Restart (bounce) a network interface.' It distinguishes this from sibling tools (e.g., check_interface, ping_device) by specifying a state-modifying action that restarts an interface.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly requires explicit confirmation, explains the behavior when confirm is false (impact analysis), and sets clear usage conditions. It does not directly name alternatives but the sibling context provides differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![Netpulse MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/hind77/Netpulse/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/hind77/Netpulse)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![Netpulse MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/hind77/Netpulse/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/hind77/Netpulse)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/hind77/Netpulse'

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