Skip to main content
Glama

ThinkNEO Control Plane

by ai.thinkneo

thinkneo_business_impact

Read-onlyIdempotent

Executive business impact dashboard. Returns a single view of: total value generated by AI agents, total AI cost, net ROI, risk avoided in dollars, cost per decision, top performing agents, and risk event summary. This is the report a CxO needs to justify AI investment.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
periodNoTime period: 'this-week', 'this-month', 'this-quarter', 'all'this-month
workspaceNoWorkspace identifierdefault

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool 'Returns a single view' and lists the metrics, but provides no extra behavioral details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or data freshness, which falls short of adding significant value beyond 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's role, and every sentence earns its place. The opening phrase 'Executive business impact dashboard' immediately anchors the purpose, and the second sentence adds audience context without redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple with only two optional params and a rich output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It accurately conveys the report's scope and metrics, making it complete enough for an agent to choose and invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100%: both 'period' and 'workspace' have descriptions in the input schema. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Executive business impact dashboard' and 'Returns a single view of' followed by a specific list of metrics, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like thinkneo_agent_roi and thinkneo_decision_cost by positioning itself as the CxO-level aggregate report.

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 gives clear context: 'This is the report a CxO needs to justify AI investment.' This implies when to use it, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, matching the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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