Skip to main content
Glama

ThinkNEO Control Plane

by ai.thinkneo

thinkneo_simulate_savings

Read-onlyIdempotent

Simulate how much your organization would save on AI costs using ThinkNEO Smart Router. Enter your current monthly AI spend and primary model, and see estimated monthly and annual savings with a recommended model mix. No authentication required — try it now!

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
primary_modelNoYour primary model: 'gpt-4o', 'claude-opus-4', 'claude-sonnet-4', 'gpt-4.1', or 'gemini-2.5-pro'gpt-4o
monthly_ai_spendYesYour current monthly AI API spend in USD (e.g., 5000.00)
task_distributionNoJSON string of task distribution, e.g., '{"chat": 0.3, "summarization": 0.2, "code_generation": 0.2, "classification": 0.15, "analysis": 0.1, "translation": 0.05}'. Values should sum to ~1.0. Omit for default enterprise distribution.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent, and the description adds that no authentication is required and that it takes user inputs to produce estimates. This extends the behavioral context without contradiction.

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?

Two sentences deliver purpose, inputs, outputs, and auth requirement without redundancy. The 'try it now!' phrase is minor and does not detract from the clarity.

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?

With an output schema and rich annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's function and key inputs/outputs. It omits task_distribution, but that is fully documented in the schema, and the overall context is complete enough for a low-complexity simulation tool.

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 full descriptions for all three parameters, including defaults, examples, and a JSON example for task_distribution. The description only repeats 'current monthly AI spend' and 'primary model,' so it adds no meaningful parameter detail beyond the schema.

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 simulates savings on AI costs using ThinkNEO Smart Router, with specific inputs (monthly AI spend, primary model) and outputs (monthly/annual savings, recommended model mix). The verb 'simulate' distinguishes it from reporting or audit siblings.

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?

It explicitly says 'No authentication required — try it now!' which indicates it's for quick prospective estimates. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like thinkneo_get_savings_report or thinkneo_agent_roi.

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