NeuroRank

Get NeuroRank team report

get_team_report

PAID (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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`shareableIds`	Yes	1–10 NeuroRank profile ids to analyse as a roster, e.g. ['NR-AB12CD','NR-EF34GH']

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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.

Conciseness5/5

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.

Completeness5/5

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.

Parameters4/5

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.

Purpose5/5

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.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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.

All NeuroRank tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

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.

Naming Consistency5/5

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.

Tool Count4/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources

Need Help?