thinkneo_check_policy

Read-onlyIdempotent

Verify AI model, provider, or action compliance with workspace governance policies to ensure secure and controlled AI usage.

Instructions

Check if a specific model, provider, or action is allowed by the governance policies configured for a workspace. Requires authentication.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`workspace`	Yes	Workspace name or ID whose governance policies to check against
`model`	No	AI model name to check (e.g., gpt-4o, claude-sonnet-4-6, gemini-2.0-flash)
`provider`	No	AI provider to check (e.g., openai, anthropic, google, mistral)
`action`	No	Specific action to check (e.g., create-completion, use-tool, fine-tune)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Tool Definition Quality

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the authentication requirement, which is valuable behavioral context not present in the annotations. 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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and scope; the second states the auth requirement. 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 low complexity (4 simple parameters), 100% schema coverage, existing annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It does not need to detail return values since the output schema exists, and the auth requirement is noted.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description references the parameter concepts (model, provider, action) but does not add semantic details beyond the schema's examples (e.g., gpt-4o, openai) or explain parameter interaction logic.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb (Check) and the specific resource (governance policy allowance for models/providers/actions). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like check_spend or get_budget_status through specificity, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description mentions 'Requires authentication' as a prerequisite, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like thinkneo_get_compliance_status or thinkneo_evaluate_guardrail, nor when to check specific parameter combinations.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

thinkneo-control-plane