Skip to main content
Glama
enesjakozh
orliesaurus

PulseMCP Server

by orliesaurus
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

Servidor PulseMCP

Un servidor de Protocolo de Contexto de Modelo (MCP) que proporciona herramientas para descubrir y explorar servidores e integraciones de MCP a través de la API PulseMCP.

Características

  • Lista de servidores MCP disponibles con filtrado y paginación

  • Busque servidores MCP específicos por nombre o funcionalidad

  • Filtrar servidores por tipos de integración

  • Lista de todas las integraciones disponibles

  • Compatibilidad total con TypeScript

Related MCP server: Notes MCP Server

Instalación

Instalación en clientes MCP

Agregue esto a la configuración de su cliente MCP y adáptelo según sus preferencias. Por ejemplo:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "pulsemcp": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "pulsemcp-server"]
    }
  }
}

  1. Clonar el repositorio:

git clone <repository-url>
cd pulsemcp-server

  1. Instalar dependencias:

npm install

  1. Construir el proyecto:

npm run build

Uso

Ejecución del servidor

El servidor se puede ejecutar directamente después de la compilación:

./build/index.js

O a través de npm:

npm start

Desarrollo

Para observar los cambios durante el desarrollo:

npm run watch

Para inspeccionar la implementación de MCP del servidor:

npm run inspector

Herramientas disponibles

servidores de lista

Enumera los servidores MCP con filtrado y paginación opcionales.

Parámetros:

  • query (opcional): término de búsqueda para filtrar servidores

  • integrations (opcional): Matriz de slugs de integración para filtrar por

  • count_per_page (opcional): Número de resultados por página (máximo: 5000)

  • offset (opcional): Número de resultados a omitir para la paginación

Ejemplo:

{
  "query": "toolhouse",
  "integrations": ["github"],
  "count_per_page": 10,
  "offset": 0
}

integraciones de lista

Enumera todas las integraciones disponibles. Esta herramienta no admite parámetros.

Formato de respuesta

Ambas herramientas devuelven respuestas JSON con la siguiente estructura:

Respuesta de list_servers

{
  "servers": [
    {
      "name": "Server Name",
      "url": "https://example.com",
      "external_url": "https://external-link.com",
      "short_description": "Server description",
      "source_code_url": "https://github.com/example/repo",
      "github_stars": 123,
      "package_registry": "npm",
      "package_name": "package-name",
      "package_download_count": 1000,
      "integrations": [
        {
          "name": "Integration Name",
          "slug": "integration-slug",
          "url": "https://integration-url.com"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "total_count": 1,
  "next": null
}

Respuesta de list_integrations

{
  "integrations": [
    {
      "name": "Integration Name",
      "slug": "integration-slug",
      "url": "https://integration-url.com"
    }
  ]
}

Manejo de errores

El servidor incluye un manejo robusto de errores para:

  • Parámetros no válidos

  • Problemas de conexión de API

  • Limitación de velocidad

  • Errores de autenticación

Los errores se devuelven en un formato estandarizado con códigos de error y mensajes apropiados.

Desarrollo

Estructura del proyecto

pulsemcp-server/
├── src/
│   └── index.ts    # Main server implementation
├── build/          # Compiled JavaScript
├── package.json    # Project configuration
└── tsconfig.json   # TypeScript configuration

Dependencias

  • @modelcontextprotocol/sdk: ^0.6.0

  • ejes: ^1.7.9

  • Tipo de script: ^5.3.3

Licencia

Lea LICENCIA.MD

Contribuyendo

Abra una PR: ¡sé amable y serás recompensado!

Available Tools

2 tools
list_integrationsB

List all available integrations

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No parameters

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'List all available integrations' implies a read operation but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the output takes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 a single, efficient sentence that states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loads the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description provides the minimum viable information about what the tool does. However, it lacks important context about authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, and output format that would help an agent use it correctly. The absence of annotations increases the need for descriptive 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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and the baseline for this scenario is 4. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose rather than redundant parameter details.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all available integrations'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'list_servers' - both are list operations but for different resources, so the distinction is implicit rather than explicit.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites, timing considerations, or comparison to the sibling 'list_servers' tool. The agent must infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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

list_serversC

List MCP servers with optional filtering

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryNoSearch term to filter servers
integrationsNoFilter by integration slugs
count_per_pageNoNumber of results per page (maximum: 5000)
offsetNoNumber of results to skip for pagination

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the results come in, whether there are rate limits, or how pagination works beyond the offset parameter. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 - a single sentence that communicates the core functionality without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and efficiently mentions the filtering capability.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a list tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what information is returned about servers, how results are structured, or provide any context about what 'MCP servers' are in this system. With no annotations and no output schema, more descriptive context would be helpful.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond mentioning 'optional filtering' which is already implied by the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage where the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 action ('List') and resource ('MCP servers'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling 'list_integrations' tool, which would require mentioning what distinguishes listing servers from listing integrations.

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 mentions 'optional filtering' which implies some usage context, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_integrations' or how to decide between filtering methods. No when-not-to-use scenarios or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 2 tool updates
    • First observedlist_integrations
    • First observedlist_servers
Deploy Server
Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Scored across 2 tools

Disambiguation5/5

The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: list_integrations targets integrations, while list_servers targets MCP servers. There is no overlap in functionality or ambiguity between them, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool based on the desired resource.

Naming Consistency5/5

Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with 'list_' as the prefix, using snake_case throughout. This predictability enhances readability and reduces cognitive load for agents when scanning the tool set.

Tool Count2/5

With only 2 tools, the server feels under-scoped for a PulseMCP Server, which might imply broader functionality. While the tools are clear, the count is too low to cover a comprehensive domain, potentially limiting agent capabilities without additional context.

Completeness2/5

The tool set is severely incomplete for a server likely intended to manage integrations and servers. There are no CRUD operations (e.g., create, update, delete) or detailed actions (e.g., get specific integration/server), leaving significant gaps that could cause agent failures in handling lifecycle tasks.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessUnresponsive

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Appeared in Searches