Skip to main content
Glama

ThinkNEO Control Plane

by ai.thinkneo

thinkneo_log_event

Log an event within an active agent trace. Supports event types: tool_call, model_call, decision, error, pii_access, guardrail_triggered. Returns event_id and running session cost. Requires authentication.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
costNoEstimated cost in USD for this event (e.g., 0.003 for an API call)
metadataNoOptional dict with additional event context
tool_nameNoName of the tool called (for tool_call events)
event_typeYesEvent type: 'tool_call', 'model_call', 'decision', 'error', 'pii_access', or 'guardrail_triggered'
latency_msNoLatency in milliseconds for this event
model_nameNoModel used (for model_call events, e.g., 'gpt-4o', 'claude-sonnet-4-20250514')
session_idYesSession ID from thinkneo_start_trace
input_summaryNoBrief summary of the input (max 500 chars, truncated if longer)
output_summaryNoBrief summary of the output (max 500 chars, truncated if longer)

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?

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses that authentication is required and that the call returns event_id and running session cost, implying session state is affected. This is useful context, though it doesn't detail side effects like whether it appends to an immutable log.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, each sentence adds new information (scope, event types, return value, auth). No wasted words.

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?

The description covers purpose, scope, event types, return value, and authentication. It doesn't mention that session_id originates from thinkneo_start_trace, but the schema already specifies that; the output schema exists, so return details needn't be expanded. Adequately complete for a logging 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?

Schema coverage is 100%—every parameter has a description in the schema. The tool description adds no parametric meaning beyond repeating the event_type list, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Log an event within an active agent trace') and enumerates six supported event types, making its scope unmistakable. It also states return values, distinguishing it from sibling logging tools like thinkneo_log_decision and thinkneo_a2a_log.

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 explicitly frames usage as within an active trace and lists the event types it supports, providing clear context. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusions, e.g., when to use thinkneo_log_decision instead, 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