Skip to main content
Glama

ThinkNEO Control Plane

by ai.thinkneo

thinkneo_router_explain

Read-onlyIdempotent

Explain why the Smart Router would choose a specific model for a task type. Shows both benchmark-based (real outcomes) and static quality estimates, and explains the reasoning behind the recommendation. Requires authentication.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
task_typeYesTask type: 'summarization', 'code_generation', 'classification', 'translation', 'analysis', 'chat'
quality_thresholdNoMinimum quality score required (0-100, default 85)

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 the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds value by revealing that it combines benchmark and static estimates and includes an authentication requirement. This goes beyond the annotation safety profile without contradicting it.

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 with a clear front-loaded purpose, followed by output specifics and authentication. Every sentence adds new information with no redundancy.

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, annotations, and full parameter documentation, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and why it exists. The only minor gap is explicit usage differentiation, but that is not required for basic completeness.

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 provides complete descriptions for both parameters, including a default for quality_threshold. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what is already documented, earning the baseline score of 3.

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 the tool's function: 'Explain why the Smart Router would choose a specific model for a task type.' This identifies a specific verb and resource, and the mention of 'benchmark-based' and 'static quality estimates' further distinguishes it from routing or comparison tools.

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 implies use when a user needs insight into a router's model selection reasoning, but it does not explicitly reference sibling tools like thinkneo_route_model or thinkneo_compare_models, nor any exclusions. The context makes the use case clear but not formally differentiated.

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