Skip to main content
Glama

ThinkNEO Control Plane

by ai.thinkneo

thinkneo_log_risk_avoidance

Log a risk event that was blocked or avoided by the governance layer. Quantifies the estimated dollar impact of the avoided risk. Examples: PII leak blocked (est. $50K GDPR fine), prompt injection prevented, policy violation caught before production. If estimated_impact_usd is not provided, a default is calculated from severity.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
severityNoSeverity level: 'low', 'medium', 'high', 'critical'medium
risk_typeYesType: 'pii_leak', 'injection_blocked', 'policy_violation', 'spend_limit', 'compliance_breach', 'data_exfiltration'
workspaceNoWorkspace identifierdefault
agent_nameNoAgent involved, if applicable
descriptionNoBrief description of what was blocked
estimated_impact_usdNoEstimated cost if this risk had materialized in USD

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations provide no safety hints beyond destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the burden. It adds a key behavioral trait: if estimated_impact_usd is not provided, a default is calculated from severity. This goes beyond the schema and is valuable for understanding tool behavior.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence provides concrete examples, and the third covers an important behavioral detail. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no fluff or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described. The description covers purpose, examples, and a important default-calculation behavior. It is complete enough for the AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, and it fits well among many logging siblings.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining the meaning and default behavior of estimated_impact_usd, and by giving concrete examples for risk_type. This enriches the schema descriptions rather than merely repeating them.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Log a risk event that was blocked or avoided by the governance layer.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from general logging tools like thinkneo_log_event or thinkneo_log_decision by focusing on risk events and avoided impact. The examples further clarify the exact scope.

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 gives explicit context: use this when logging a risk event that was blocked or avoided, such as PII leaks or prompt injections. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the specificity of 'risk event' and the governance layer context provides clear guidance.

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