Skip to main content
Glama

ThinkNEO Control Plane

by ai.thinkneo

thinkneo_sla_define

Idempotent

Define or update an SLA (Service Level Agreement) for an AI agent. Set accuracy, quality, cost, safety, or latency thresholds with automatic breach detection and configurable actions (alert, escalate, disable, switch_model). Like SRE SLOs but for AI agent outcomes. Requires authentication.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
metricYesMetric to monitor: 'accuracy' (outcome verification rate %), 'response_quality' (avg quality score), 'cost_efficiency' (cost per verified outcome), 'safety' (guardrail pass rate %), 'latency' (avg response ms)
windowNoRolling window: '1h', '24h', '7d', or '30d'7d
thresholdYesTarget threshold value (e.g., 95.0 for 95% accuracy)
agent_nameYesAgent name to set SLA for (e.g., 'support-bot', 'finance-agent')
breach_actionNoAction on breach: 'alert' (notify), 'escalate' (notify + flag), 'disable' (stop agent), 'switch_model' (fallback model)alert
threshold_directionNo'min' = actual must be >= threshold (for accuracy, quality). 'max' = actual must be <= threshold (for cost, latency).min

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already establish this is a write operation (readOnlyHint false) that is idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds useful context by stating 'Requires authentication' and explaining that defining an SLA enables 'automatic breach detection and configurable actions,' which informs the agent of side effects. No contradictions 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?

Four short sentences, each serving a purpose: definition, features, analogy, and auth requirement. The description is front-loaded with the primary action and remains free of filler.

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?

For a write tool with six parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core concept, metrics, actions, and authentication. The missing details (e.g., window and threshold_direction) are already documented in the schema, so the description does not need to repeat them. The lack of explicit prerequisites or return-value explanation is acceptable given the output schema.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all six parameters, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description reiterates the metric names and breach actions at a high level, which adds a small amount of interpretive context but no new syntax or format details 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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Define or update an SLA (Service Level Agreement) for an AI agent.' It then enumerates the metric types and configurable actions, making the tool's function clear. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like thinkneo_sla_status or thinkneo_sla_dashboard, which are about viewing SLA state.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is for creating or updating SLA definitions, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as thinkneo_alert_rule_create or the SLA status/breach tools. The SRE SLO analogy provides context but no exclusion criteria or alternatives are mentioned.

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