Generate an A2A Agent Card from registry data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | Yes | Agent ID from registry |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / agent_idAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Agent ID from registry",
+ "title": "Agent Id",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / mcp_server_urlRemoved value: -{
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "default": null,
- "description": "URL of the MCP server to generate an agent card for. Defaults to ThinkNEO's own server (https://mcp.thinkneo.ai/mcp). The server must support the tools/list method.",
- "title": "Mcp Server Url"
-}Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "agent_id"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description itself adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., that it generates a card without modifying registry data). It does not contradict the annotations, but it also does not enhance understanding beyond what annotations already communicate.
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 directly states the action. It is concise with no wasted words. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification, lacking any additional helpful structure like example use cases or what the output contains.
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 tool with one well-documented parameter and an output schema, the description is minimally viable. However, given the dense sibling context (many bridge/registry tools), the description would benefit from at least one sentence clarifying when to use this specific generator. The current state is sufficient but leaves gaps in understanding the broader context.
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 fully documents the only parameter (agent_id) with its description 'Agent ID from registry'. The tool description's phrase 'from registry data' aligns with this. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds marginal value; the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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's function: generating an A2A Agent Card from registry data. It specifies a concrete verb (generate) and resource (agent card), making the primary purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like thinkneo_bridge_a2a_to_mcp or thinkneo_registry_get, leaving some ambiguity about when this specific tool is preferred.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as thinkneo_bridge_a2a_to_mcp or thinkneo_registry_get. It lacks context about typical scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. This is a significant gap given the large number of sibling tools in the registry/bridge category.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.