List active alerts for budget, policy, SLA, and security from the ThinkNEO gateway.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| severity | No | Filter by severity: critical, high, medium, low, all | all |
| workspace | No | Workspace name or ID | default |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / limitRemoved value: -{
- "default": 20,
- "description": "Maximum number of alerts to return (1–100)",
- "maximum": 100,
- "minimum": 1,
- "title": "Limit",
- "type": "integer"
-}Input schema / properties / severity / descriptionPrevious value: -"Filter alerts by severity level: critical, warning, info, or all"New value: +"Filter by severity: critical, high, medium, low, all"Input schema / properties / workspace / defaultAdded value: +"default"Input schema / properties / workspace / descriptionPrevious value: -"Workspace name or ID to list active alerts for"New value: +"Workspace name or ID"Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "workspace"
-]Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionAdded value: +"Maximum number of alerts to return (1–100)"Input schema / properties / limit / maximumAdded value: +100Input schema / properties / limit / minimumAdded value: +1Input schema / properties / severity / descriptionAdded value: +"Filter alerts by severity level: critical, warning, info, or all"Input schema / properties / workspace / descriptionAdded value: +"Workspace name or ID to list active alerts for"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that alerts are 'active' and span specific categories, but does not disclose further behavioral traits such as pagination, sorting, or authentication requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no redundant words and covers the essential categories without unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple nature of the tool, the output schema is present, and annotations cover safety, the description is fairly complete. It could have mentioned the severity and workspace parameters, but the schema already documents them, and the tool's scope is clearly defined.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and both parameters (severity and workspace) have clear descriptions. The tool description does not add parameter-level 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.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('active alerts') while specifying the scope across budget, policy, SLA, and security. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like thinkneo_alert_rule_list by focusing on current alerts rather than alert rules.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name and description imply it is for active alerts, it does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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.
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.