Think MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Think Done

think_done

Finalize a thinking scope by providing a summary, winning path, and verdict. The tool checks for unresolved blockers and returns corrective steps if issues exist.

Instructions

Verify and close a think/think_batch scope before a complex final answer.

For think_cycle use action=finalize. Rejects path gaps or unresolved blockers and returns the next correction.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "winningPath": "<winningPath>",
      "summary": "<summary>",
      "verdict": "<verdict>"
    },
    "name": "think_done"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`scopeId`	No	Explicit think scope id (defaults to active scope)
`summary`	Yes	Final logic summary
`verdict`	Yes	Ready for answer?
`winningPath`	Yes	Thought numbers leading to solution
`exportReport`	No	Export format (optional)
`includeMermaid`	No	Include diagram in export

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedv5.6.0Jul 26, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / constraintCheck

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "How constraints were addressed",
-  "type": "string"
-}

removedInput schema / properties / potentialFlaws

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "What could go wrong",
-  "type": "string"
-}

addedInput schema / properties / scopeId

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Explicit think scope id (defaults to active scope)",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / summary / minLength
```
Added value: +1
```
addedInput schema / properties / winningPath / minItems
```
Added value: +1
```

First observedv1.0.0Jan 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond the sparse annotation (openWorldHint: false): it reveals that the tool performs verification, closure, and can reject with next corrections. It also mentions a specific action for think_cycle. This provides useful context about what the tool does internally.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the main purpose, and the second adds key behavioral details. Every sentence is necessary and directly informative.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context (verification, closure, rejection). It mentions returning 'next correction', hinting at output. However, it lacks explanation of how parameters interact or the overall workflow (e.g., after you have a winning path). The think_cycle reference adds some cross-tool context but also potential confusion.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter coverage with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning about parameters beyond the schema. It does not explain how parameters like winningPath or verdict relate to the tool's behavior.

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 'Verify and close a think/think_batch scope', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'For think_cycle use action=finalize', indicating a different use case. However, the reference to think_cycle within the description is slightly confusing and could be clearer about the differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description mentions using this tool 'before a complex final answer', which gives a usage context. It also describes rejection conditions. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The reference to think_cycle is an alternative but not fully explanatory.

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

Deploy Server