Skip to main content
Glama

ThinkNEO Control Plane

by ai.thinkneo

thinkneo_alert_rule_create

Create a Monitor Agent alert rule. Example: notify by email when API key 'X' reaches 75% of its budget → metric=key_spend_pct_of_budget, operator=gte, threshold=75, scope_value=, budget_usd=. Requires an admin API key.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesHuman-readable rule name
metricYesOne of: key_spend_24h_usd, key_spend_30d_usd, key_spend_pct_of_budget, workspace_error_rate_pct, workspace_max_rps, workspace_requests, workspace_spend_24h_usd, workspace_spend_30d_usd
channelsNoComma-separated: email, discord_webhook, whatsappemail
operatorNoComparison: gte, gt, lte, lt, eqgte
severityNolow, medium, high, criticalmedium
thresholdYesThreshold value to compare the metric against
workspaceNoWorkspace id (optional — defaults to the API key's workspace)
budget_usdNoKey budget in USD — required for key_spend_pct_of_budget
scope_valueNoAPI key id — required for key_* metrics
cooldown_minutesNoMinimum minutes between firings

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds the admin API key requirement and a detailed example showing how parameters interplay, which goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a practical example and the auth requirement. Every sentence contributes value without waste.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (10 params), the example and auth note provide essential context. An output schema exists, so return values are covered. The description is complete for selecting and invoking the tool.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions, but the example in the description adds meaningful semantic context (e.g., scope_value and budget_usd for key_spend_pct_of_budget) beyond the schema fields.

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 the tool creates a Monitor Agent alert rule with a specific verb and resource. It also provides a concrete example, distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete, list, and test.

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?

Clear context of when to use (creating alert rules) and an explicit prerequisite (admin API key). Does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the example clarifies usage scenarios.

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

All ThinkNEO Control Plane toolsInspect
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

C2.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as the multiple safety-check tools (thinkneo_check, thinkneo_detect_injection, thinkneo_evaluate_guardrail) and the many cost/reporting tools (thinkneo_agent_roi, thinkneo_decision_cost, thinkneo_business_impact). An agent would struggle to reliably pick the correct tool for a given intent. The boundaries between dashboard, audit, and reporting tools are particularly fuzzy.

Naming Consistency2/5

All tools share the thinkneo_ prefix, but the remaining naming is inconsistent: some follow verb_noun (check_spend, list_alerts), some use noun_verb (compliance_generate, alert_rule_create), and others are bare nouns (business_impact, cache_status). This mix makes it hard to predict tool names based on action and object.

Tool Count1/5

With 68 tools, this is an extremely large surface area, far beyond the typical 3-15 well-scoped set and even beyond the 25+ heavy threshold. Even for a comprehensive enterprise platform, the sheer number overwhelms an agent's ability to choose effectively. It feels like a kitchen-sink approach rather than a curated toolkit.

Completeness3/5

The toolset covers a wide range of governance, observability, and cost-management features, but there are notable lifecycle gaps: SLAs can be defined but not updated or deleted, alert rules lack an update operation, and registry entries have no remove/unpublish. Also, policy management is limited to checking, with no create/update tool. The memory tools feel out of place and lack a delete operation.

Resources