NeuroRank exposes its esports cognitive-combine data over MCP. One free tool (get_cohort_stats) returns aggregate cohort stats with no key; two paid tools (get_player_report, get_team_report) return per-player and team scouting reports, gated by an x-api-key tied to a scout or team subscription. Streamable HTTP, stateless. Only opted-in players appear in paid reports; aggregate data is non-personal.
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 4.5/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool targets a clearly distinct scope: aggregate stats for all players, individual report for one player, and team report for a roster. No overlap in purpose or output.
All tools follow a consistent 'get_<noun>_<noun>' pattern (get_cohort_stats, get_player_report, get_team_report), with only the final word varying appropriately.
Three tools is slightly lean but reasonable for the focused domain of cognitive combine data retrieval. Each tool serves a distinct user need without excess.
Covers the main data access patterns (aggregate, individual, team). Missing a tool for listing or searching players, but the core reporting functionality is well-covered.
get_cohort_statsGet NeuroRank cohort statsAInspectReturns NeuroRank's public, aggregate cognitive-combine statistics across all completed combine runs: total runs, estimated trials, median run age, and measured reliability (split-half; test-retest sample still accruing). Read-only, no authentication, aggregate (non-personal) data only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses read-only nature, no authentication requirement, and aggregate (non-personal) scope. It lacks mention of error handling or rate limits, but for a simple endpoint this is sufficient.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the key purpose. Every word adds value, no redundancy. Highly efficient.
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?
Given no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns. Sibling tool names provide additional context for distinguishing use cases.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by enumerating the returned statistics (total runs, estimated trials, etc.), effectively compensating for the lack of an output schema.
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 it returns 'public, aggregate cognitive-combine statistics' and lists the specific fields. It distinguishes itself from siblings (get_player_report, get_team_report) by emphasizing aggregate and non-personal data.
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 provides clear usage context: read-only, no authentication, aggregate data. It implicitly suggests use when needing summary stats, but doesn't explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives beyond sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_player_reportGet NeuroRank player reportAInspectPAID. Returns a full cognitive-combine report for one player by NeuroRank profile id (NR-XXXXXX): six dimension scores, archetype, the written report, and coaching notes. Requires an API key (header x-api-key) belonging to a user with an active scout or team subscription, and is limited to players who have opted in to scouting. Subject to a monthly quota.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| shareableId | Yes | NeuroRank profile id, e.g. NR-AB12CD |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool is paid, requires specific authentication and player opt-in, and is subject to a quota. This provides sufficient behavioral context for safe invocation.
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 sentence with a clear colon-separated list of report contents, followed by a second sentence covering requirements. It is front-loaded with 'PAID' and contains no unnecessary words.
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?
Given one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description comprehensively explains the tool's purpose, return contents, and all usage constraints (payment, subscription, opt-in, quota). No gaps remain.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% (the shareableId parameter is fully described with pattern and example). The description adds the example format 'NR-AB12CD' but does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 the tool returns a full cognitive-combine report for a single player by NeuroRank profile ID, listing specific contents (dimension scores, archetype, written report, coaching notes). This is distinct from siblings get_cohort_stats and get_team_report, which focus on aggregated or team-level data.
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 explicitly marks the tool as PAID, requires an API key with a specific subscription (scout or team), limits to players who opted in, and mentions a monthly quota. It does not explicitly state when to use alternatives, but the sibling tools' purposes are implied by their names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_team_reportGet NeuroRank team reportAInspectPAID (team tier). Analyses a roster of NeuroRank players and returns a composition report: per-dimension team averages, strengths and weaknesses, per-dimension standouts, score spread, archetype mix, and a written team intelligence summary. Requires an API key (header x-api-key) on an active team subscription. Only players who have opted in to scouting are included; at least 2 opted-in, scored players are required. Costs one monthly report pull.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| shareableIds | Yes | 1–10 NeuroRank profile ids to analyse as a roster, e.g. ['NR-AB12CD','NR-EF34GH'] |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description fully carries the burden. It discloses the subscription cost, API key requirement, opt-in constraint, and necessary minimum player count, leaving no hidden behavioral surprises.
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?
Three dense, front-loaded sentences with zero waste. Every sentence conveys essential information: purpose, prerequisites, and constraints.
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 fully covers the tool's purpose, input requirements, output content, and usage context. Given the single parameter and no output schema, no additional information is needed.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the ID format (e.g., 'NR-AB12CD'), range of 1–10 items, and the 'shareableIds' purpose, which goes beyond the schema.
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 it returns a NeuroRank composition report with specific components (averages, strengths, weaknesses, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_player_report (individual) and get_cohort_stats (cohort) by focusing on a team roster.
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 specifies it is a paid feature requiring an API key and active subscription, and it outlines player opt-in and minimum count conditions. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but usage context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
