Skip to main content
Glama

ThinkNEO Control Plane

by ai.thinkneo

thinkneo_write_memory

Idempotent

Write or update a Claude Code project memory file (.md). Persists project context, user preferences, feedback, and reference notes across Claude Code sessions. Filename must end in .md with lowercase alphanumeric characters. Path traversal is blocked. Requires authentication.Use this to persist project context, user preferences, feedback, and reference notes across Claude Code sessions. The filename must end in .md and contain only lowercase letters, digits, underscores, and hyphens (e.g. 'user_fabio.md', 'project_new_feature.md'). Path traversal is blocked.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contentYesFull markdown content to write to the file.
filenameYesName of the memory file to write (e.g. 'user_fabio.md', 'project_thinkneodo_droplet.md'). Must end in .md.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description discloses important behavioral details: authentication requirement, path traversal blocking, and filename validation rules. These add significant context beyond what annotations provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description has redundancy: it repeats the persistence purpose, filename constraint, and path traversal blocking. While the first sentence is front-loaded and clear, the repetition inflates the length without adding new information.

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?

The description is largely complete for a write tool: it explains purpose, usage context, filename requirements, authentication, and security blocking. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. Minor gaps include not explaining overwrite behavior, but overall adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaningful constraints not in the schema: filename must contain only lowercase letters, digits, underscores, and hyphens, and must end in .md. It also provides examples. This enriches parameter understanding 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 uses a specific verb ('Write or update') and resource ('Claude Code project memory file (.md)'), and clearly states what it persists (project context, user preferences, feedback). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool thinkneo_read_memory by focusing on the write/update operation.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this to persist project context, user preferences, feedback, and reference notes across Claude Code sessions.' It does not provide explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use instructions, but the context is clear enough.

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