Skip to main content
Glama
thinkneo-ai

thinkneo-control-plane

Official
by thinkneo-ai

Related Servers

Alternatives to thinkneo-control-plane

  • F
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    Provides AI security guardrails through Javelin's platform to detect harmful content, prompt injection attempts, and language policies. Enables comprehensive content safety analysis with trust & safety detection, prompt injection protection, and language identification.
    1
    -
  • A
    license
    A
    quality
    A
    maintenance
    Governance proxy for MCP servers. Wraps any MCP server with policy evaluation, human approval workflows, and hash-chain audit trails. Supports stdio and Streamable HTTP transports.
    1
    13 npm
    14
    Apache 2.0
  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    B
    maintenance
    53 regulatory compliance evidence tools across 3 MCP servers for AI agents. MiCA authorization status, DORA evidence packs, stablecoin risk scoring (105+ tokens), macro intelligence (86 FRED series). Every response ECDSA-signed (ES256K), blockchain-anchored, audit-ready. Free tier, OAuth 2.0.
    MIT
  • F
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    F
    maintenance
    A secure middleware that intercepts AI agent tool calls to evaluate risks and manage human-in-the-loop approvals via durable Inngest workflows. It ensures compliance with standards like the EU AI Act by pausing high-risk actions until authorized by a human reviewer.
    1
    -
  • F
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    Analyzes security compliance documents (ISMS-P, NIST, CIS Benchmark) in PDF/TXT format, extracts requirements, recommends AWS services, and evaluates implementation difficulty and timelines through structured JSON output.
    -
  • A
    license
    B
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    Provides a comprehensive suite of 76 tools for AWS cloud resource optimization, cost management, and infrastructure monitoring. It enables users to identify unused resources, analyze cost trends, right-size capacity, and maintain security compliance through natural language.
    76
    MIT

Related Servers

  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    B
    maintenance
    Provides a governance gateway for LLM and agent traffic via MCP, blocking prompt injection, redacting PII, enforcing per-tenant token budgets, and caching repeat questions semantically. Enables AI agents to route model calls through the same guardrails instead of calling providers directly.
    MIT
  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    Universal MCP router and gateway that bridges LLM agents to OpenAPI, GraphQL, and AWS Lambda services with ISO/IEC 42001 AI governance, RBAC, PII redaction, semantic tool routing, and a web dashboard.
    MIT
  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    F
    maintenance
    An enterprise infrastructure layer for the Model Context Protocol that provides authentication, RBAC, audit logging, and rate limiting for tool calls. It acts as a secure proxy between AI agents and MCP servers to ensure security and compliance in production environments.
    28 npm
    MIT

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Scored across 8 tools

Disambiguation4/5

Tools are generally distinct with clear domains: policy (permissions), guardrail (content safety), spend (analytics), budget (limits), compliance (audit), alerts (incidents), and provider health. Minor semantic overlap exists between check_spend and get_budget_status (both financial), and between check_policy and evaluate_guardrail (both validation), but descriptions clarify their distinct scopes.

Naming Consistency4/5

Consistent snake_case prefixing (thinkneo_) and mostly verb_noun structure (check, evaluate, get, list, schedule). Minor deviation with provider_status which lacks a verb prefix, breaking the pattern established by get_budget_status and get_compliance_status. Verbs vary (check/evaluate/get) but remain readable.

Tool Count4/5

Eight tools is a reasonable count for an AI governance control plane, covering policy, cost, compliance, and operational monitoring. The inclusion of schedule_demo (a sales/marketing function) is slightly incongruous with the operational focus of the other seven tools, but doesn't bloat the set.

Completeness3/5

Strong observability coverage (read-only status checks, spend analysis, alert listing) but lacks expected control plane capabilities: no tools to create/update policies, set budgets, configure guardrails, or manage/acknowledge alerts. The surface is adequate for monitoring but incomplete for 'control' operations implied by the server name.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessSlow