Skip to main content
Glama

ThinkNEO Control Plane

by ai.thinkneo

thinkneo_detect_waste

Read-onlyIdempotent

Detect waste and inefficiency in AI operations. Analyzes agent performance, A2A communication overhead, error costs, unused capacity, and cost outliers. Returns specific actionable findings like 'you are losing $3,200/month on error retries' or 'this flow is 5x more expensive than your best-performing flow'. This is the diagnostic tool that creates the buying trigger.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
daysNoAnalysis window in days
workspaceNoWorkspace identifierdefault

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds transparency by detailing the types of findings (e.g., '$3,200/month on error retries') and the analytical scope. This goes beyond what annotations alone convey, with no contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the main action and includes useful details and examples. It consists of four sentences, each contributing value, though the final 'buying trigger' sentence is somewhat promotional but still adds usage context.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, rich annotations, and a clear description, the tool is well-specified. The description explains the tool's purpose, analysis scope, and output format, while parameter details are left to the schema. It is complete for a read-only diagnostic tool.

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 already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (days and workspace). The description does not mention parameters, so it adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline for full coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Detect waste and inefficiency in AI operations.' It further specifies what it analyzes (agent performance, A2A communication overhead, error costs, unused capacity, cost outliers) and gives concrete output examples, distinguishing it from siblings like a2a_audit or agent_roi.

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 usage context: 'This is the diagnostic tool that creates the buying trigger.' This implies when to use it (to identify waste and drive sales) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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