List all MCP <-> A2A bridge mappings for a tenant.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the 'all' qualifier and tenant scope but does not disclose any further behavioral traits, such as pagination or filtering behavior. It is consistent with annotations.
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?
A single, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the tool's function. No superfluous words or repetition.
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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is fully adequate for an agent to understand and invoke this tool correctly.
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 effectively 100%. The description's mention of 'for a tenant' suggests the tenant is contextually determined, which is a useful semantic note. Baseline for 0 params is 4.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('MCP <-> A2A bridge mappings') and scope ('for a tenant'). This distinguishes it from sibling bridge tools like thinkneo_bridge_mcp_to_a2a, which convert mappings rather than list them.
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 phrase 'List all MCP <-> A2A bridge mappings' clearly signals when to use this tool (when a tenant's mappings need to be enumerated). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity.
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.
