A
licenseC
qualityD
maintenanceA systematic reasoning MCP server for Claude Desktop, featuring Beam Search and Monte Carlo Tree Search to facilitate complex problem-solving and decision-making processes.
1
12
MIT
mcp-reasoner
by Jacck
MCP 推理器
Claude Desktop 的推理实现可让您同时使用 Beam Search 和蒙特卡洛树搜索 (MCTS)。坦白说，这开始是为了看看我们是否可以让 Claude 在复杂问题解决方面做得更好......事实证明我们绝对可以。
当前版本：
v2.0.0
什么是新的：
增加了2个实验推理算法：
- `mcts-002-alpha` - Uses the A* Search Method along with an early *alpha* implementation of a Policy Simulation Layer - Also includes an early *alpha* implementation of Adaptive Exploration Simulator & Outcome Based Reasoning Simulator *NOTE* the implementation of these alpha simulators is not complete and is subject to change - `mcts-002alt-alpha` - Uses the Bidirectional Search Method along with an early *alpha* implementation of a Policy Simulation Layer - Also includes an early *alpha* implementation of Adaptive Exploration Simulator & Outcome Based Reasoning Simulator *NOTE* the implementation of these alpha simulators is not complete and is subject to change
mcts-001-alpha和mcts-001alt-alpha发生了什么？
很简单：它毫无用处，而且和基础的
mcts方法几乎一样。初步测试后，基本思维过程的结果也几乎相同，这表明仅仅添加策略模拟可能没有效果。
那么为什么现在要添加策略模拟层呢？
嗯，我认为将策略和搜索结合起来很重要，因为大多数算法都是这样实现它们的。
先前版本：
v1.1.0
增加了对搜索参数的模型控制：
beamWidth - 让 Claude 调整要跟踪的路径数量（1-10）
numSimulations - 微调 MCTS 模拟计数（1-150）
特征
您可以在两种搜索策略之间切换：
定向搜索（适用于简单的东西）
MCTS（当事情变得复杂时）带有 alpha 变体（见上文）
追踪不同推理路径的优劣
列出克劳德思考问题的所有不同方式
分析推理过程如何进行
遵循 MCP 协议（显然）
Related MCP server: MCP Advanced Reasoning Server
安装
git clone https://github.com/frgmt0/mcp-reasoner.git
OR clone the original:
git clone https://github.com/Jacck/mcp-reasoner.git
cd mcp-reasoner
npm install
npm run build配置
添加到 Claude 桌面配置：
{
"mcpServers": {
"mcp-reasoner": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["path/to/mcp-reasoner/dist/index.js"],
}
}
}测试
[更多测试即将推出]
基准测试
[即将添加基准测试]
测试的关键基准：
数学500
GPQA-钻石
GMSK8
可能是 Polyglot 和/或 SWE-Bench
执照
该项目根据 MIT 许可证获得许可 - 有关详细信息，请参阅LICENSE文件。
Available Tools
1 toolmcp-reasonerC
Advanced reasoning tool with multiple strategies including Beam Search and Monte Carlo Tree Search
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| beamWidth | No | Number of top paths to maintain (n-sampling). Defaults to 3 if not specified | |
| nextThoughtNeeded | Yes | Whether another step is needed | |
| numSimulations | No | Number of MCTS simulations to run. Defaults to 50 if not specified | |
| strategyType | No | Reasoning strategy to use (beam_search or mcts) | |
| thought | Yes | Current reasoning step | |
| thoughtNumber | Yes | Current step number | |
| totalThoughts | Yes | Total expected steps |
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, idempotency, or side effects. The description only mentions 'advanced reasoning' without explaining what operations are performed or their implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, highly concise. It front-loads the core purpose. However, it may be too brief for the tool's complexity, but it is not verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the reasoning process, how strategies differ, or how the parameters like beamWidth and numSimulations interact. More context is needed for effective use.
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% coverage with descriptions for all 7 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the semantics well.
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 tool is for advanced reasoning with specific strategies (Beam Search, MCTS). It is specific about the resource and action, though not as precise as a verb+resource pairing. No siblings exist to differentiate from, so the description adequately distinguishes itself.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no context on strategy selection, and no prerequisites or use cases. The sibling-tools list is empty, but the description should still offer usage suggestions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
1 tool update
v1.0.0- First observed
mcp-reasoner
TDQS
B3/5.0
Scored across 1 tool
Disambiguation5/5
With only one tool, there is no possibility of ambiguity or overlap between tools. The single tool 'mcp-reasoner' has a clearly distinct purpose focused on advanced reasoning strategies.
Naming Consistency5/5
A single tool inherently has perfect naming consistency, as there are no other tools to compare it against. The name 'mcp-reasoner' follows a clear, descriptive pattern that matches the server name.
Tool Count2/5
A single tool is generally too few for most server purposes, as it limits functionality and flexibility. While it might be appropriate for a highly specialized niche, the description suggests advanced reasoning with multiple strategies, which could benefit from more granular tools (e.g., separate tools for different search strategies).
Completeness3/5
It is difficult to assess completeness with only one tool, as there is no clear domain surface to evaluate. The tool covers reasoning strategies, but without additional tools (e.g., for input/output, configuration, or specific reasoning modes), there are likely gaps in a full reasoning workflow.
Maintenance
ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues
Related MCP Connectors
Hosted MCP server connecting claude.ai, ChatGPT and other AI apps to your own computer
A comprehensive Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that enables AI assistants to interact with yo…
LLM Orchestration MCP Agent
LLM Orchestration Agent (Mcp)
Related MCP Servers
- FlicenseDqualityDmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server that enhances Claude in Cursor AI with advanced reasoning capabilities including Monte Carlo Tree Search, Beam Search, R1 Transformer, and Hybrid Reasoning methods.813-
- AlicenseBqualityNot gradedmaintenanceMCP server for structured reasoning with cognitive trap detection, verification, and context compression541 npm1-
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceAn MCP server for deterministic prompt optimization in Claude Code. Score prompts across 7 quality dimensions, auto-select from 11 Anthropic techniques, and return a structural scaffold.123 npm2MIT