Skip to main content
Glama

ThinkNEO Control Plane

by ai.thinkneo

thinkneo_read_memory

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read Claude Code project memory files. Without arguments, returns the MEMORY.md index listing all available memories. With a filename argument, returns the full content of that specific memory file. Use this to access project context, user preferences, feedback, and reference notes persisted across Claude Code sessions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filenameNoName of the memory file to read (e.g. 'user_fabio.md', 'project_thinkneodo_droplet.md'). Omit to get the MEMORY.md index with all available files.

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?

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail by specifying the two invocation modes and what each returns (index vs full content). It doesn't contradict annotations and provides additional context beyond them.

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 concise, two sentences total, with the verb and resource in the first sentence. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and uses clean, purposeful language without unnecessary detail.

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?

For a simple read tool with one optional parameter, the description covers all necessary aspects together with rich annotations and a complete schema. It explains both usage modes and the type of content accessible, making it fully adequate for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with a detailed description of the 'filename' parameter, including examples and default behavior. The tool description reinforces this by explaining the two modes, which adds slight value by framing the parameter's role in the overall operation.

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 a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('Claude Code project memory files'), and clearly explains two modes: returning the MEMORY.md index without arguments or the full content with a filename. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like thinkneo_write_memory by focusing on the read operation.

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 context on when to use the tool: to access project context, user preferences, feedback, and reference notes. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state 'when not to use', but the read/write distinction from siblings is evident and the use case description is sufficient.

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