Skip to main content
Glama

ThinkNEO Control Plane

by ai.thinkneo

thinkneo_evaluate_trust_score

Evaluate your organization AI Trust Score (0-100) across 10 dimensions: Guardrails, PII Protection, Injection Defense, Audit Trail, Compliance, Model Governance, Cost Controls, Outcome Validation, Observability, and Smart Routing. Returns a score, detailed breakdown, badge level (Platinum/Gold/Silver/Bronze/Unrated), and actionable recommendations. Score is valid for 30 days. Generates a public badge URL for embedding in websites and documentation. Part of the 'From Prompt to Proof' framework. Requires authentication.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
org_nameYesOrganization name for the trust score badge (e.g., 'Acme Corp')

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the minimal annotations: it discloses that the score is valid for 30 days, that a public badge URL is generated (indicating a potential side effect), and that authentication is required. This helps the agent understand consequences and prerequisites. However, it does not fully disclose whether existing badges are overwritten or if there are other state changes.

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 composed of six concise sentences, each adding new information: core function, return values, validity, badge URL, framework, and authentication. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and does not include fluff, though it could be slightly streamlined.

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 tool's complexity (10 dimensions, multiple return components), the description is quite complete: it enumerates inputs, outputs, validity, side effects (badge URL), and prerequisites. An output schema exists, so detailed return formatting is not required. It could mention potential costs or rate limits but is sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool 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?

The only parameter 'org_name' is fully described in the input schema (100% coverage) with an example ('Acme Corp'). The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics, but with high schema coverage, the 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 uses the specific verb 'Evaluate' with the resource 'organization AI Trust Score' and lists the 10 dimensions covered. This makes the tool's function immediately clear and distinguishes it from sibling tools like thinkneo_get_trust_badge (which likely retrieves an existing badge) and thinkneo_evaluate_guardrail (which focuses on a single dimension).

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides contextual cues such as 'Score is valid for 30 days' and 'Requires authentication', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like thinkneo_get_trust_badge. It implies usage for assessing trust score but lacks exclusionary guidance or explicit when-not scenarios.

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