Skip to main content
Glama

ThinkNEO Control Plane

by ai.thinkneo

thinkneo_register_claim

Register an action claim from an AI agent. The agent declares it performed an action (e.g., sent an email, created a PR, wrote a file) and ThinkNEO will verify it actually happened. Returns a claim_id for tracking. Part of the Outcome Validation Loop — 'From Prompt to Proof'. Requires authentication.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionYesType of action claimed: 'email_sent', 'http_request', 'file_written', 'db_insert', 'pr_created', 'payment_processed', 'message_sent', 'api_call', 'task_completed', 'data_exported', 'notification_sent', 'custom'
targetYesTarget of the action — what was acted upon. Examples: 'user@example.com' (email), 'https://api.example.com/endpoint' (http), '/opt/data/report.pdf' (file), 'usage_log' (db table)
metadataNoOptional verification context. For http_status: {expected_status: 200, method: 'GET'}. For file_exists: {expected_hash: 'sha256...'}. For db_row_exists: {where_column: 'id', where_value: '123'}.
ttl_hoursNoHours until claim expires if not verified (default 24, max 168)
agent_nameNoName of the agent making the claim (e.g., 'marketing-agent')
session_idNoOptional observability session_id to link this claim to a trace
evidence_typeYesHow to verify the claim: 'http_status' (check URL response), 'file_exists' (check file path), 'db_row_exists' (check database row), 'webhook' (wait for callback), 'smtp_delivery' (check email delivery), 'manual' (flag for human review)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations provide basic safety hints, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: authentication is required, ThinkNEO will verify the claim, and a claim_id is returned for tracking. It does not introduce any contradiction and supplements the structured data with workflow context.

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 long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place. It avoids fluff and does not restate schema details.

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?

Given the rich schema and implied output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, who uses it, the verification loop, authentication, and the return value. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke 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 schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the description does not need to explain parameter syntax. It provides a few illustrative examples of actions, but these largely mirror the schema's own enum values, offering minimal additional semantic value.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('register') and resource ('action claim'), and explains the agent's role and ThinkNEO's verification follow-up. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'thinkneo_verify_claim' by focusing on registration and returning a tracking ID.

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 clear context: use this after an agent performs an action, as part of the Outcome Validation Loop. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended workflow is easy to infer.

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