Skip to main content
Glama

ThinkNEO Control Plane

by ai.thinkneo

thinkneo_route_model

Read-onlyIdempotent

AI Smart Router — find the cheapest model that meets your quality threshold. Specify your task type and quality requirements, and ThinkNEO will recommend the optimal model with estimated cost and savings vs premium models. Supports 17+ models across Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, Meta, Mistral, DeepSeek, Alibaba, Cohere, and xAI. Requires authentication.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
task_typeYesThe type of AI task: summarization, classification, code_generation, chat, analysis, translation, or embedding
text_sampleNoOptional sample text for better routing. Helps estimate token count and task complexity. Max 500 characters.
max_latency_msNoMaximum acceptable latency in milliseconds. Omit for no limit.
estimated_tokensNoEstimated total tokens for the request (input + output). Default 1000.
quality_thresholdNoMinimum quality score required (0-100). Default 85 = enterprise-grade.
budget_per_requestNoMaximum budget per request in USD. Omit for no limit.
preferred_providersNoComma-separated list of preferred providers (e.g., 'openai,anthropic'). These will be prioritized at similar cost.

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 already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by noting that authentication is required, that it supports 17+ models across major providers, and that it returns estimated cost and savings — all beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core value proposition, the second explains the input/outcome, and the third adds provider scope and authentication. Every sentence contributes necessary information with strong front-loading.

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 output schema exists, return-value documentation is not the description's job. The description covers the use case, required input dimensions (task type, quality), key differentiator (cost/savings), provider coverage, and authentication. This is complete for a routing tool with well-documented schemas.

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%, so the input schema already documents all 7 parameters. The description adds only general references to 'task type' and 'quality requirements,' which maps to task_type and quality_threshold but does not enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific action: 'find the cheapest model that meets your quality threshold.' This clearly identifies the resource (model routing) and the outcome (cost-optimized recommendation), and distinguishes it from siblings like thinkneo_compare_models by focusing on cost-based routing rather than generic comparison.

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 for when to use the tool: when you need to select a model based on task type and quality requirements under cost constraints. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or list when-not-to-use cases, but the phrase 'AI Smart Router' and the cost-savings framing make the intended usage fairly obvious.

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