Skip to main content
Glama

ThinkNEO Control Plane

by ai.thinkneo

thinkneo_set_baseline

Idempotent

Define the pre-AI cost baseline for a business process. Example: 'customer_support_ticket costs $12 per ticket and takes 15 minutes without AI'. This baseline is used to calculate ROI when agents handle the same process. Call this once per process to establish the comparison point.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
notesNoAdditional context about this baseline
workspaceNoWorkspace identifierdefault
unit_labelNoWhat one unit represents, e.g. 'ticket', 'review', 'decision', 'document'unit
process_nameYesName of the business process, e.g. 'customer_support_ticket', 'loan_review', 'content_moderation'
cost_per_unit_usdYesPre-AI cost per unit in USD, e.g. 12.00 for a $12 support ticket
avg_duration_minutesNoAverage time in minutes for one unit without AI, e.g. 15

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds context about the baseline being a comparison point, but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like overwrite behavior or side effects. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose, includes a clarifying example, and ends with a usage instruction. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the presence of a full output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and usage context. It could mention what happens when called multiple times, but the idempotentHint annotation covers that. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline score is 3. The description adds value by providing a concrete example ('customer_support_ticket costs $12 per ticket and takes 15 minutes without AI') that maps to process_name, cost_per_unit_usd, unit_label, and avg_duration_minutes, making parameter relationships clearer than the schema alone.

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 purpose: 'Define the pre-AI cost baseline for a business process.' It uses a specific verb ('define') and resource ('baseline'), and the example clarifies the exact scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on ROI calculation or savings reporting.

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 guidance on when to call: 'Call this once per process to establish the comparison point.' It also explains the baseline's role in subsequent ROI calculations. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, so a perfect score is not warranted.

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