Skip to main content
Glama

ThinkNEO Control Plane

by ai.thinkneo

thinkneo_registry_install

Get installation config for an MCP server from the ThinkNEO Marketplace. Returns ready-to-use JSON config for Claude Desktop, Cursor, Windsurf, or custom clients. Tracks the download. No authentication required.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesPackage name to install (e.g. 'thinkneo-control-plane')
client_typeNoYour MCP client: claude-desktop, cursor, windsurf, or customclaude-desktop

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?

The description states 'No authentication required' and 'Tracks the download', disclosing a side effect and access requirement. Annotations are all false (not read-only, destructive, etc.), but the description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations. It does not fully elaborate on other possible side effects, but for this tool the disclosed information is adequate.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes only high-value information: return format, client support, side effect, and auth requirement. No waste.

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 2-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it returns, for which clients, the tracking side effect, and auth. No need to detail return values since an output schema exists.

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% with both parameters already described with examples ('thinkneo-control-plane' and client types). The description does not add parameter-level details, but since the schema fully carries that burden, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get') and resource ('installation config for an MCP server from ThinkNEO Marketplace'). It also differentiates from sibling registry tools by explicitly mentioning the ready-to-use JSON config for specific clients (Claude Desktop, Cursor, Windsurf, custom), making its purpose unmistakable.

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 clearly implies this tool is for retrieving installation configuration, and provides context about the return format and no-auth requirement. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear enough for an agent to recognize this is the installation-focused sibling among registry tools.

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