Get full details for an MCP server package from the ThinkNEO Marketplace. Returns readme, full tools list, version history, reviews, security score, and installation instructions. No authentication required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Package name (e.g. 'thinkneo-control-plane', 'filesystem', 'github') |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. It adds meaningful context by stating 'No authentication required' and enumerating the specific data fields returned, which goes beyond the annotations and helps set expectations about the output.
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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by the return details. Every piece of information earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler.
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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only, no side effects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is fully adequate. It even enumerates the return contents, which is helpful even though the output schema exists. There are no obvious gaps in context for an agent to properly invoke this tool.
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?
The schema description covers 100% of the single 'name' parameter with a clear example. The tool description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter, but it doesn't need to because the schema is already sufficient. This aligns with the baseline score for high schema coverage.
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 ('Get') and resource ('MCP server package from the ThinkNEO Marketplace'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like thinkneo_registry_search and thinkneo_registry_install by focusing on retrieving full package details rather than searching or installing.
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?
The description clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need full details about a specific package. It lists the rich content returned (readme, tools list, version history, etc.), which helps an agent decide it is the right tool for comprehensive package information. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like thinkneo_registry_search for lightweight queries.
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.
