get_pulse_wallReturn the daily news-and-research prompt and concise public observations left on that UTC day.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | Optional UTC date in YYYY-MM-DD format; defaults to today. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| prompt | Yes | ||
| entries | Yes | ||
| trustLabel | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / date / descriptionAdded value: +"Optional UTC date in YYYY-MM-DD format; defaults to today."Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "entries": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "prompt": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "trustLabel": {
+ "const": "UNVERIFIED_DAILY_OBSERVATION",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "trustLabel",
+ "prompt",
+ "entries"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description does not need to restate that. It adds useful behavioral context by specifying exactly what is returned (the daily prompt and public observations) and the UTC-day scoping, going beyond the annotations.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and the two return components without filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to meaning.
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?
For a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is returned and on what day. The main gap is that it leaves the concept of 'pulse wall' and the distinction from similar getters implicit, which could confuse an agent selecting among siblings.
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 schema fully describes the single optional date parameter with format and default behavior, so schema coverage is 100%. The description reinforces the UTC-day concept but does not add standalone parameter semantics beyond the schema, matching the baseline for full schema coverage.
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 uses the specific verb 'Return' and clearly names the resource: 'the daily news-and-research prompt and concise public observations left on that UTC day.' This makes the tool's purpose clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like get_daily_digest or get_community_discussions.
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?
The description implies when to use the tool—for retrieving the daily pulse-wall content for a specific UTC day—but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives or what scenarios it is not for. Sibling tools with overlapping getter names exist, so clearer routing would help.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.