Skip to main content
Glama

ThinkNEO Control Plane

by ai.thinkneo

thinkneo_verify_claim

Idempotent

Trigger verification of a registered action claim. Runs the appropriate verification adapter (HTTP check, file check, database check, etc.) and returns the result with evidence. If already verified, returns cached result (use force=true to re-verify). Part of the Outcome Validation Loop — 'From Prompt to Proof'. Requires authentication.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
forceNoForce re-verification even if already verified/failed
claim_idYesUUID of the claim to verify (from thinkneo_register_claim)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it mentions running verification adapters (HTTP, file, DB), returning evidence, caching previous results, force re-verification, and authentication requirements. The idempotentHint is supported by the caching behavior, and there is 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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and each sentence provides valuable information (mechanism, caching behavior, framework, authentication). No redundant or wordy phrasing; includes the brand phrase but it is compact and contextual.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return fields. It covers the tool's purpose, operational details, caching, force flag, and auth prerequisites. For a tool with two well-documented parameters and a clear behavioral model, this is complete.

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 covers both parameters (claim_id and force) with descriptions, but the tool description adds important semantics: claim_id originates from thinkneo_register_claim, and force=true triggers re-verification when a cached result exists. This enriches the schema's baseline meaning.

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 action ('Trigger verification of a registered action claim'), the resource ('action claim'), and the mechanism ('Runs the appropriate verification adapter'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like thinkneo_register_claim (registration) and thinkneo_get_proof (retrieval) by focusing on the verification process and its output.

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 (after registering a claim, as part of the Outcome Validation Loop) and explains the force parameter for re-verification when a cached result exists. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for an AI agent to select it appropriately.

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