MCP Advanced Reasoning Server
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Server capabilities have not been inspected yet.
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| mcts_reasoningD | – |
| beam_search_reasoningD | – |
| r1_reasoningD | – |
| hybrid_reasoningD | – |
| reason_mctsD | – |
| reason_beamD | – |
| reason_r1D | – |
| reason_hybridD | – |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 8 tools
The tool set has severe ambiguity issues with multiple tools appearing to do the same thing. There are clear duplicates: beam_search_reasoning and reason_beam, hybrid_reasoning and reason_hybrid, mcts_reasoning and reason_mcts, r1_reasoning and reason_r1. Without descriptions, these appear to be identical pairs, making it impossible for an agent to distinguish between them.
The naming is inconsistent with two different patterns mixed together: some use 'algorithm_reasoning' (e.g., beam_search_reasoning) while others use 'reason_algorithm' (e.g., reason_beam). This creates confusion and lacks a unified convention, though both patterns are readable individually.
With 8 tools, the count is reasonable for a reasoning server, but the apparent duplication suggests it's borderline. If these are truly 4 distinct algorithms with redundant naming, the effective count would be 4, which feels thin for an 'advanced' reasoning server.
The server appears to cover multiple reasoning algorithms (beam search, hybrid, MCTS, R1), but without descriptions, it's unclear if there are gaps in the reasoning lifecycle. The duplication suggests potential missing operations like configuration or result retrieval, and the lack of clear domain coverage makes assessment difficult.