Skip to main content
Glama

ThinkNEO Control Plane

by ai.thinkneo

thinkneo_check_spend

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check AI spend summary for a workspace, team, or project. Returns real cost breakdown by provider, model, and time period from the ThinkNEO AI gateway.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
periodNoTime period: today, this-week, this-month, last-monththis-month
group_byNoGroup costs by: provider, model, team, or projectprovider
workspaceNoWorkspace name or IDdefault

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context by specifying that it returns 'real cost breakdown' from the ThinkNEO AI gateway, and by listing the grouping dimensions (provider, model, time period). This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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, concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It contains no redundant filler and efficiently communicates the tool's function and key features.

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 an output schema and full parameter descriptions, the description is largely complete. It covers scope and return breakdown dimensions. However, it mentions 'team, or project' while the input schema only includes a 'workspace' parameter, creating a minor mismatch. Additionally, no alternatives or exclusions are noted, but this does not significantly impact completeness.

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?

The input schema provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (period, group_by, workspace), achieving 100% coverage. The description references provider/model/time period, which maps to the group_by and period parameters, but does not add new semantic details beyond the schema. Baseline 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 identifies the tool's function as checking AI spend summaries, specifies the scope (workspace, team, or project), and details the output breakdown by provider, model, and time period. This establishes a distinct purpose from similar tools like thinkneo_get_budget_status or thinkneo_get_savings_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 provides clear context on when to use the tool—when an AI spend summary is needed—and the scoping options (workspace, team, or project). It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the core usage is evident, which aligns with 'clear context, no exclusions'.

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