Skip to main content
Glama

ThinkNEO Control Plane

by ai.thinkneo

thinkneo_compare_models

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare available AI models from the live gateway catalog.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modelsYesComma-separated model IDs to compare (e.g. gpt-4o,claude-sonnet-4-20250514,gemini-2.5-flash)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / models / default
      Removed value: -""
    • changedInput schema / properties / models / description
      Previous value: -"Comma-separated model IDs"New value: +"Comma-separated model IDs to compare (e.g. gpt-4o,claude-sonnet-4-20250514,gemini-2.5-flash)"
    • addedInput schema / required
      Added value: +[
+  "models"
+]
  2. Changed8 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / estimate_input_tokens
      Removed value: -{
-  "anyOf": [
-    {
-      "type": "integer"
-    },
-    {
-      "type": "null"
-    }
-  ],
-  "default": null,
-  "description": "For cost estimation: number of input tokens",
-  "title": "Estimate Input Tokens"
-}
    • removedInput schema / properties / estimate_output_tokens
      Removed value: -{
-  "anyOf": [
-    {
-      "type": "integer"
-    },
-    {
-      "type": "null"
-    }
-  ],
-  "default": null,
-  "description": "For cost estimation: number of output tokens",
-  "title": "Estimate Output Tokens"
-}
    • removedInput schema / properties / max_input_price_per_m
      Removed value: -{
-  "anyOf": [
-    {
-      "type": "number"
-    },
-    {
-      "type": "null"
-    }
-  ],
-  "default": null,
-  "description": "Maximum input price in USD per 1M tokens",
-  "title": "Max Input Price Per M"
-}
    • removedInput schema / properties / min_context
      Removed value: -{
-  "anyOf": [
-    {
-      "type": "integer"
-    },
-    {
-      "type": "null"
-    }
-  ],
-  "default": null,
-  "description": "Minimum context window in tokens",
-  "title": "Min Context"
-}
    • removedInput schema / properties / modalities
      Removed value: -{
-  "anyOf": [
-    {
-      "items": {
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "type": "array"
-    },
-    {
-      "type": "null"
-    }
-  ],
-  "default": null,
-  "description": "Required modalities (e.g. ['text','vision'])",
-  "title": "Modalities"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / models
      Added value: +{
+  "default": "",
+  "description": "Comma-separated model IDs",
+  "title": "Models",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / providers
      Removed value: -{
-  "anyOf": [
-    {
-      "items": {
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "type": "array"
-    },
-    {
-      "type": "null"
-    }
-  ],
-  "default": null,
-  "description": "Filter by providers (list of provider names)",
-  "title": "Providers"
-}
    • removedInput schema / properties / use_case
      Removed value: -{
-  "anyOf": [
-    {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    {
-      "type": "null"
-    }
-  ],
-  "default": null,
-  "description": "Filter by use case: coding, reasoning, writing, vision, long context, cheap, agentic, multilingual, EU compliant, real-time, open source",
-  "title": "Use Case"
-}
  3. Added
  4. Removed
  5. Added

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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 clear. The description adds the context of the 'live gateway catalog' as the data source, but does not elaborate on what the comparison entails or how results are structured.

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 a single sentence with no filler. It conveys the core purpose directly and efficiently.

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?

This is a simple tool with one well-documented parameter, an output schema, and annotations covering safety. The description is sufficient for this complexity, though it could benefit from a note distinguishing it from benchmarking or routing tools.

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 description coverage is 100% because the only parameter 'models' has a full description with an example. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the verb 'Compare' and the resource 'available AI models from the live gateway catalog', making the purpose clear. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like thinkneo_benchmark_compare or thinkneo_benchmark_report, which could also involve comparison.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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. Without any mention of exclusions or alternative tools, the agent has to infer the appropriate context.

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