Skip to main content
Glama

cohort_scores

Read-only

UNDERSTANDING — facet-level scores for every member of a cohort, each with the cohort average and the delta against it. A 60 in governance means nothing until you know the market sits at 45; this is the endpoint that says so. Priced per result — $0.005 per request plus $0.0002 per record returned (less past 100), capped at $0.50 a request, under pay-as-you-go; included in Understanding and Influence. Estimate first at /api/v1/prices/estimate. See apis://prices.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindYesCohort kind: tag, industry, region, area or vc — says what `slug` names.
pageNoPage number, 1-based (default 1).
slugYesSlug of the cohort within `kind` — a tag, industry, region, area or VC slug, e.g. "payments" with kind "tag".
limitNoResults per page, 1-100 (default 25).
contextNoOptional: one sentence on why you are asking. Never used to rank; read only if a result is wrong.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / context / description
      Previous value: -"Optional: why you are asking. One sentence — the task you are trying to complete, or what you expect to get back. Never included in the answer and never used to rank; it is read only when a result turns out to be wrong, which is when knowing the intent is what makes the report actionable."New value: +"Optional: one sentence on why you are asking. Never used to rank; read only if a result is wrong."
    • changedInput schema / properties / page / description
      Previous value: -"Page number, 1-based (default 1). Use with `limit` to walk a long list."New value: +"Page number, 1-based (default 1)."
  2. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / kind / description
      Added value: +"Cohort kind: tag, industry, region, area or vc — says what `slug` names."
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit / description
      Added value: +"Results per page, 1-100 (default 25)."
    • addedInput schema / properties / page / description
      Added value: +"Page number, 1-based (default 1). Use with `limit` to walk a long list."
    • addedInput schema / properties / slug / description
      Added value: +"Slug of the cohort within `kind` — a tag, industry, region, area or VC slug, e.g. \"payments\" with kind \"tag\"."
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / context
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Optional: why you are asking. One sentence — the task you are trying to complete, or what you expect to get back. Never included in the answer and never used to rank; it is read only when a result turns out to be wrong, which is when knowing the intent is what makes the report actionable.",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
  4. Added

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: per-record pricing, the $0.50 cap, plan inclusion, and the directive to estimate at /api/v1/prices/estimate first — useful operational traits 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the purpose in the first sentence, and the pricing block is dense but each clause carries actionable information. Slightly verbose on billing detail, but nothing is truly wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description does describe what comes back (per-member scores, cohort average, delta), and it discloses cost and pre-call estimation. Only the sibling-relative 'when to use' dimension is thin.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so kind/slug/page/limit/context are already documented in the schema; the enum and example are there too. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 names a specific output shape — facet-level scores for every cohort member plus cohort average and per-member delta — which is materially distinct from siblings like cohort_stats or cohort_rankings. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so an agent still has to infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is only implied by the framing ('A 60 in governance means nothing until you know the market sits at 45') plus the pricing/estimate guidance. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over cohort_rankings, cohort_stats, or compare_cohorts.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources