Skip to main content
Glama

get_thinking_summary

Generate a comprehensive summary of the entire thinking process to document and review structured idea exploration.

Instructions

Generate a comprehensive summary of the entire thinking process.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • Core handler function that implements the get_thinking_summary tool logic by generating a comprehensive JSON summary of the thought history, including counts by stage, average scores, branches, revisions, and a timeline.
    generateSummary(): string {
      if (!this.thoughtHistory.length) {
        return JSON.stringify({ summary: "No thoughts recorded yet" });
      }
      
      const stages: Record<string, ThoughtData[]> = {};
      for (const thought of this.thoughtHistory) {
        const stageName = thought.stage;
        if (!stages[stageName]) {
          stages[stageName] = [];
        }
        stages[stageName].push(thought);
      }
      
      // Calculate various metrics
      const summary = {
        totalThoughts: this.thoughtHistory.length,
        stages: Object.entries(stages).reduce((acc, [stage, thoughts]) => {
          acc[stage] = {
            count: thoughts.length,
            averageScore: thoughts.reduce((sum, t) => sum + (t.score || 0), 0) / thoughts.length
          };
          return acc;
        }, {} as Record<string, { count: number, averageScore: number }>),
        branches: Object.entries(this.branches).reduce((acc, [branchId, thoughts]) => {
          acc[branchId] = thoughts.length;
          return acc;
        }, {} as Record<string, number>),
        revisions: this.thoughtHistory.filter(t => t.isRevision).length,
        timeline: this.thoughtHistory.map(t => ({
          number: t.thoughtNumber,
          stage: t.stage,
          score: t.score,
          branch: t.branchId
        }))
      };
      
      return JSON.stringify({ summary }, null, 2);
    }
  • MCP CallToolRequestSchema switch case handler that executes the get_thinking_summary tool by calling the thinking server's generateSummary method and returning the result as text content.
    case "get_thinking_summary": {
      return {
        content: [{
          type: "text",
          text: thinkingServer.generateSummary()
        }]
      };
    }
  • Schema definition for the get_thinking_summary tool, using an empty Zod schema since it requires no input parameters.
    export const emptySchema = z.object({});
    
    export const getThinkingSummaryTool: Tool = {
      name: "get_thinking_summary",
      description: "Generate a comprehensive summary of the entire thinking process.",
      parameters: emptySchema,
      inputSchema: zodToInputSchema(emptySchema)
    };
  • src/tools.ts:83-89 (registration)
    Registration of the get_thinking_summary tool in the exported toolDefinitions array, which is used by the ListTools handler.
    export const toolDefinitions = [
      captureThoughtTool,
      reviseThoughtTool,
      retrieveRelevantThoughtsTool,
      getThinkingSummaryTool,
      clearThinkingHistoryTool
    ];
  • index.ts:33-36 (registration)
    MCP ListTools request handler that registers all tools, including get_thinking_summary, by returning the toolDefinitions array.
      return {
        tools: toolDefinitions
      };
    });
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool generates a summary but doesn't explain what 'comprehensive' entails, whether it's read-only or has side effects, how it accesses the thinking process, or what format the output takes. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that presumably operates on stored data.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('generate a comprehensive summary') without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool's apparent complexity (summarizing an 'entire thinking process'), lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't clarify what constitutes the thinking process, how comprehensive the summary is, or what the output looks like, leaving the agent with critical unknowns for proper use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it correctly implies no parameters are required by not mentioning any. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools when the description aligns with the schema.

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 action ('generate a comprehensive summary') and the resource ('entire thinking process'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its siblings like 'retrieve_relevant_thoughts' or 'capture_thought', which prevents a perfect score.

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 like 'retrieve_relevant_thoughts' or 'clear_thinking_history'. There's no mention of prerequisites, timing, or contextual cues for invocation, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Promptly-Technologies-LLC/mcp-structured-thinking'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server