Skip to main content
Glama
deenesjakoruzh
angrysky56

MCTS MCP Server

by angrysky56
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

MCTS MCP サーバー

AI 支援による分析と推論のための高度なベイジアン モンテ カルロ ツリー検索 (MCTS) エンジンを公開するモデル コンテキスト プロトコル (MCP) サーバー。

概要

このMCPサーバーにより、クロードはモンテカルロ木探索（MCTS）アルゴリズムを用いて、トピック、質問、またはテキスト入力を深く探索的に分析することができます。MCTSアルゴリズムはベイズ的アプローチを用いて、様々な視点や解釈を体系的に探索し、複数の反復を通して進化する洞察に満ちた分析結果を生成します。

Related MCP server: MCP Advanced Reasoning Server

特徴

  • ベイジアンMCTS ：分析中に探索と活用のバランスをとるために確率的アプローチを使用する

  • マルチ反復分析: 反復ごとに複数のシミュレーションを使用して、思考の複数の反復をサポートします。

  • 状態の持続性: 同じチャット内のターン間で、主要な結果、不適切なアプローチ、および事前情報を記憶します。

  • アプローチ分類法：生成された思考をさまざまな哲学的アプローチとファミリーに分類します

  • トンプソンサンプリング: ノード選択にトンプソンサンプリングまたはUCTを使用できる

  • サプライズ検出：分析の驚くべき、あるいは新しい方向性を特定する

  • 意図分類: ユーザーが新しい分析を開始するか、以前の分析を継続するかを理解する

使用法

サーバーは、システム プロンプトにコピー アンド ペースト可能な形式で、以下に詳述する多くのツールを LLM に公開します。

Claude にトピックまたは質問の詳細な分析を依頼すると、これらのツールが自動的に活用され、MCTS アルゴリズムと分析ツールを使用してさまざまな角度から調査されます。

代替テキスト

仕組み

MCTS MCPサーバーは、LLMを直接呼び出すのではなく、ローカル推論アプローチを採用しています。これは、ツールがAIモデル自体を呼び出すのではなく、AIアシスタント（Claudeなど）から呼び出されるように設計されたMCPプロトコルと互換性があります。

クロードがサーバーに分析の実行を依頼すると、サーバーは次の処理を実行します。

  1. MCTSシステムを質問で初期化します

  2. MCTSアルゴリズムを使用して探索を複数回反復する

  3. さまざまな分析タスクに対して決定論的な応答を生成する

  4. 検索中に見つかった最良の分析を返します

インストール

リポジトリをクローンします。

このセットアップでは、依存関係の解決が改善された、pip よりも高速な代替手段である UV (Astral UV) を使用します。

  1. Python 3.10以降がインストールされていることを確認してください

  2. セットアップ スクリプトを実行します。

./setup.sh

これにより、次のようになります。

  • UVがインストールされていない場合はインストールしてください

  • UVで仮想環境を作成する

  • UVを使用して必要なパッケージをインストールする

  • 必要な状態ディレクトリを作成する

または、手動で設定することもできます。

# Install UV if not already installed
curl -fsSL https://astral.sh/uv/install.sh | bash
# Create and activate a virtual environment
uv venv .venv
source .venv/bin/activate

# Install dependencies
uv pip install -r requirements.txt

クロードデスクトップ統合

Claude Desktop と統合するには:

  1. このリポジトリからclaude_desktop_config.jsonの内容をコピーします

  2. これを Claude Desktop 構成に追加します (通常は~/.claude/claude_desktop_config.jsonにあります)

  3. 設定ファイルがまだ存在しない場合は作成し、このプロジェクトのclaude_desktop_config.jsonの内容を追加します。

  4. Claudeデスクトップを再起動します

構成例:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "MCTSServer": {
      "command": "uv",
      "args": [
        "run",
        "--directory", "/home/ty/Repositories/ai_workspace/mcts-mcp-server/src/mcts_mcp_server",
        "server.py"
      ],
      "env": {
        "PYTHONPATH": "/home/ty/Repositories/ai_workspace/mcts-mcp-server"
      }
    }
  }
}

システム上の MCTS MCP サーバーの場所と一致するようにパスを更新してください。

推奨されるシステム プロンプトと、Ollama 統合を含む更新されたツール、つまり、プロジェクト手順に次のブロックを配置します。

MCTS server and usage instructions:

MCTS server and usage instructions:
list_ollama_models()  # Check what models are available
set_ollama_model("cogito:latest")  # Set the model you want to use
initialize_mcts(question="Your question here", chat_id="unique_id")  # Initialize analysis
run_mcts(iterations=1, simulations_per_iteration=5)  # Run the analysis

After run_mcts is called it can take wuite a long time ie minutes to hours
- so you may discuss any ideas or questions or await user confirmation of the process finishing,
- then proceed to synthesis and analysis tools on resumption of chat.

## MCTS-MCP Tools Overview

### Core MCTS Tools:
- `initialize_mcts`: Start a new MCTS analysis with a specific question
- `run_mcts`: Run the MCTS algorithm for a set number of iterations/simulations
- `generate_synthesis`: Generate a final summary of the MCTS results
- `get_config`: View current MCTS configuration parameters
- `update_config`: Update MCTS configuration parameters
- `get_mcts_status`: Check the current status of the MCTS system

Default configuration prioritizes speed and exploration, but you can customize parameters like exploration_weight, beta_prior_alpha/beta, surprise_threshold.

## Configuration

You can customize the MCTS parameters in the config dictionary or through Claude's `update_config` tool. Key parameters include:

- `max_iterations`: Number of MCTS iterations to run
- `simulations_per_iteration`: Number of simulations per iteration
- `exploration_weight`: Controls exploration vs. exploitation balance (in UCT)
- `early_stopping`: Whether to stop early if a high-quality solution is found
- `use_bayesian_evaluation`: Whether to use Bayesian evaluation for node scores
- `use_thompson_sampling`: Whether to use Thompson sampling for selection

Articulating Specific Pathways:
Delving into the best_path nodes (using mcts_instance.get_best_path_nodes() if you have the instance) and examining the sequence of thought and content
at each step can provide a fascinating micro-narrative of how the core insight evolved.

Visualizing the tree (even a simplified version based on export_tree_summary) could also be illuminating and I will try to set up this feature.

Modifying Parameters: This is a great way to test the robustness of the finding or explore different "cognitive biases" of the system.

Increasing Exploration Weight: Might lead to more diverse, less obviously connected ideas.

Decreasing Exploration Weight: Might lead to deeper refinement of the initial dominant pathways.

Changing Priors (if Bayesian): You could bias the system towards certain approaches (e.g., increase alpha for 'pragmatic') to see how it influences the
outcome.

More Iterations/Simulations: Would allow for potentially deeper convergence or exploration of more niche pathways.

### Ollama Integration Tools:
- `list_ollama_models`: Show all available local Ollama models
- `set_ollama_model`: Select which Ollama model to use for MCTS
- `run_model_comparison`: Run the same MCTS process across multiple models

### Results Collection:
- Automatically stores results in `/home/ty/Repositories/ai_workspace/mcts-mcp-server/results`
- Organizes by model name and run ID
- Stores metrics, progress info, and final outputs

# MCTS Analysis Tools

This extension adds powerful analysis tools to the MCTS-MCP Server, making it easy to extract insights and understand results from your MCTS runs.

The MCTS Analysis Tools provide a suite of integrated functions to:

1. List and browse MCTS runs
2. Extract key concepts, arguments, and conclusions
3. Generate comprehensive reports
4. Compare results across different runs
5. Suggest improvements for better performance

## Available Run Analysis Tools

### Browsing and Basic Information

- `list_mcts_runs(count=10, model=None)`: List recent MCTS runs with key metadata
- `get_mcts_run_details(run_id)`: Get detailed information about a specific run
- `get_mcts_solution(run_id)`: Get the best solution from a run

### Analysis and Insights

- `analyze_mcts_run(run_id)`: Perform a comprehensive analysis of a run
- `get_mcts_insights(run_id, max_insights=5)`: Extract key insights from a run
- `extract_mcts_conclusions(run_id)`: Extract conclusions from a run
- `suggest_mcts_improvements(run_id)`: Get suggestions for improvement

### Reporting and Comparison

- `get_mcts_report(run_id, format='markdown')`: Generate a comprehensive report (formats: 'markdown', 'text', 'html')
- `get_best_mcts_runs(count=5, min_score=7.0)`: Get the best runs based on score
- `compare_mcts_runs(run_ids)`: Compare multiple runs to identify similarities and differences

## Usage Examples

# To list your recent MCTS runs:

list_mcts_runs()

# To get details about a specific run:

get_mcts_run_details('cogito:latest_1745979984')

### Extracting Insights

# To get key insights from a run:

get_mcts_insights(run_id='cogito:latest_1745979984')

### Generating Reports

# To generate a comprehensive markdown report:

get_mcts_report(run_id='cogito:latest_1745979984', format='markdown')


### Improving Results

# To get suggestions for improving a run:

suggest_mcts_improvements(run_id='cogito:latest_1745979984')

### Comparing Runs

To compare multiple runs:

compare_mcts_runs(['cogito:latest_1745979984', 'qwen3:0.6b_1745979584'])

## Understanding the Results

The analysis tools extract several key elements from MCTS runs:

1. **Key Concepts**: The core ideas and frameworks in the analysis
2. **Arguments For/Against**: The primary arguments on both sides of a question
3. **Conclusions**: The synthesized conclusions or insights from the analysis
4. **Tags**: Automatically generated topic tags from the content

## Troubleshooting

If you encounter any issues with the analysis tools:

1. Check that your MCTS run completed successfully (status: "completed")
2. Verify that the run ID you're using exists and is correct
3. Try listing all runs to see what's available: `list_mcts_runs()`
4. Make sure the `.best_solution.txt` file exists in the run's directory

## Advanced Example Usage

### Customizing Reports

You can generate reports in different formats:

# Generate a markdown report

report = get_mcts_report(run_id='cogito:latest_1745979984', format='markdown')

# Generate a text report

report = get_mcts_report(run_id='cogito:latest_1745979984', format='text')

# Generate an HTML report

report = get_mcts_report(run_id='cogito:latest_1745979984', format='html')

### Finding the Best Runs

To find your best-performing runs:

best_runs = get_best_mcts_runs(count=3, min_score=8.0)

This returns the top 3 runs with a score of at least 8.0.

## Simple Usage Instructions

1. **Changing Models**:

   list_ollama_models()  # See available models
   set_ollama_model("qwen3:0.6b")  # Set to fast small model

2. **Starting a New Analysis**:

   initialize_mcts(question="Your question here", chat_id="unique_identifier")

3. **Running the Analysis**:

   run_mcts(iterations=3, simulations_per_iteration=10)

4. **Comparing Performance**:

   run_model_comparison(question="Your question", iterations=2)

5. **Getting Results**:

   generate_synthesis()  # Final summary of results
   get_mcts_status()     # Current status and metrics

プロンプトの例

  • 「人工知能が人間の創造性に与える影響を分析する」

  • 「このテーマの倫理的側面を探求し続ける」

  • 「前回の実行で見つかった最良の分析は何でしたか？」

  • 「この MCTS プロセスはどのように機能しますか？」

  • 「現在のMCTS構成を表示してください」

代替テキスト

開発者向け

# Activate virtual environment
source .venv/bin/activate

# Run the server directly (for testing)
uv run server.py

# OR use the MCP CLI tools
uv run -m mcp dev server.py

サーバーのテスト

サーバーが正しく動作しているかどうかをテストするには:

# Activate the virtual environment
source .venv/bin/activate

# Run the test script
python test_server.py

これにより、LLM アダプターがテストされ、正常に動作しているかどうかが確認されます。

貢献

MCTS MCPサーバーの改善への貢献を歓迎します。改善の余地がある領域は以下のとおりです。

  • より洗練された分析のためのローカル推論アダプタの改良

  • より洗練された思考パターンと評価戦略を追加する

  • ツリーの視覚化と結果レポートの強化

  • MCTSアルゴリズムパラメータの最適化

ライセンス: MIT

Available Tools

6 tools
get_statusC

Get the current MCTS status

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No parameters

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 of behavioral disclosure. 'Get the current MCTS status' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time or cached data, or what format the status information takes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, clear sentence: 'Get the current MCTS status'. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no redundant words or unnecessary elaboration. This is an excellent example of conciseness for a simple tool.

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 (a status-checking tool with no output schema and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'MCTS status' includes (e.g., operational state, error messages, performance metrics) or how the result should be interpreted. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context about the return value and usage scenarios.

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, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate since there are none to explain. This meets the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools, as there's no need to compensate for missing schema information.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Get the current MCTS status' clearly states the action (Get) and resource (MCTS status), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its siblings like 'get_synthesis' or 'initialize_mcts', leaving ambiguity about what specifically distinguishes 'status' from other retrieval operations. The description avoids tautology but lacks specificity about what 'MCTS status' entails.

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. With siblings like 'get_synthesis', 'list_available_models', and 'run_mcts_search', there's no indication of whether this tool is for checking system health, monitoring progress, or retrieving configuration states. The absence of usage context leaves 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.

get_synthesisC

Generate a final synthesis of the MCTS results

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No parameters

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool generates a synthesis, implying a read operation, but doesn't clarify if this is a computation-heavy process, if it requires specific states (e.g., completed MCTS runs), or what the output entails (e.g., summary vs. detailed analysis). The description lacks details on performance, side effects, or error conditions.

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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's function without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool, though it could be slightly more informative (e.g., adding context about when to use it) without sacrificing conciseness.

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 of MCTS operations and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the synthesis includes (e.g., statistics, recommendations), how it relates to sibling tools, or any behavioral traits. For a tool that likely processes search results, more context is needed to guide effective 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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, earning a baseline score of 4 for this dimension, as it appropriately avoids unnecessary details.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the tool's purpose ('Generate a final synthesis of the MCTS results') with a clear verb ('Generate') and resource ('MCTS results'), but it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'run_mcts_search' or 'get_status'. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what makes this synthesis different from other operations.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether MCTS must be initialized or run first), timing (e.g., after search completion), or how it differs from siblings like 'get_status' or 'run_mcts_search'. Without such context, usage is implied but not explicit.

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

initialize_mctsC

Initialize MCTS for a question

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chat_idNoUnique identifier for this conversationdefault
modelNoModel name (optional)
providerNoLLM providergemini
questionYesThe question to analyze

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
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 of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Initialize MCTS' but doesn't explain what this does operationally (e.g., sets up state, allocates resources, requires specific permissions), what happens on failure, or any side effects. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately sized. However, it lacks front-loading of critical details (e.g., purpose or key parameters), which slightly reduces its effectiveness despite its brevity.

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 of initializing a system like MCTS with 4 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what initialization entails, what state is created, or how it interacts with sibling tools, leaving the agent with insufficient context 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 4 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify the relationship between parameters like 'chat_id' and 'question'), resulting in a baseline score of 3 as the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the tool 'Initialize MCTS for a question' which provides a basic verb ('Initialize') and resource ('MCTS'), but it's vague about what MCTS is and what initialization entails. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'run_mcts_search' or 'get_synthesis', leaving the specific purpose unclear beyond a general setup action.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing (e.g., before running search), or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from context without explicit direction.

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

list_available_modelsC

List available models for a provider

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
providerNoProvider namegemini

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does, not how it behaves. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, what format the list returns, or any rate limits or side effects. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple listing tool with one parameter.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'available models' means (e.g., model names, capabilities, statuses), how results are structured, or any dependencies on other tools like 'set_provider'. The agent lacks critical context to use this effectively.

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 schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'provider' documented as 'Provider name' with a default value. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond implying the tool filters by provider, which is already clear from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('List') and resource ('available models for a provider'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_status' or 'set_provider', but the verb+resource combination is specific enough for basic understanding.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or relationships to sibling tools like 'set_provider' (which might affect available models) or 'get_synthesis' (which might use these models).

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

set_providerC

Set the LLM provider and model

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modelNoModel name (optional)
providerNoProvider namegemini

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a 'Set' action which implies mutation/write behavior, but doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, whether changes are persistent, what happens to existing configurations, or any side effects. No information about error conditions, rate limits, or authentication requirements is provided.

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 at just 6 words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and target. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information about what the tool does.

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?

For a configuration/mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after setting the provider/model, whether the change is immediate or requires restart, what values are valid, or what the tool returns. The agent lacks crucial information about this write operation's behavior and consequences.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters fully with their types, optionality, and default values. The description adds minimal value beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'LLM provider and model' which maps to the parameters but doesn't provide additional context about valid values, constraints, or relationships between parameters.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Set') and identifies the target resources ('LLM provider and model'). It distinguishes this as a configuration tool rather than a query or execution tool. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential sibling tools that might also configure aspects of the system, though none of the listed siblings appear to be direct alternatives.

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 or when not to use it. There's no mention of prerequisites, timing considerations, or relationship to other tools like 'initialize_mcts' or 'list_available_models' that might be related to system setup. The agent must infer usage context entirely from the tool name and parameters.

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. 6 tool updatesv1.0.0
    • First observedget_status
    • First observedget_synthesis
    • First observedinitialize_mcts
    • First observedlist_available_models
    • First observedrun_mcts_search
    • First observedset_provider
Deploy Server
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Scored across 6 tools

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no ambiguity: get_status retrieves current state, get_synthesis generates final output, initialize_mcts sets up the process, list_available_models shows options, run_mcts_search performs iterations, and set_provider configures the model. The tools cover different stages and aspects of the MCTS workflow without overlap.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case throughout: get_status, get_synthesis, initialize_mcts, list_available_models, run_mcts_search, set_provider. The naming is predictable and readable, using clear verbs like 'get', 'initialize', 'list', 'run', and 'set' that accurately describe each action.

Tool Count5/5

With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for managing MCTS processes, covering initialization, configuration, execution, and result retrieval. Each tool earns its place in the workflow, providing a focused set without being too sparse or bloated, which is typical for a specialized domain like MCTS.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the core MCTS lifecycle comprehensively: initialization (initialize_mcts), configuration (set_provider, list_available_models), execution (run_mcts_search), and results (get_status, get_synthesis). A minor gap exists in lacking tools for intermediate monitoring or adjusting parameters during search, but agents can work around this with the provided tools.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • MCP Reasoner

    parmarjh
    A
    license
    C
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    A 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

  • Conversational Analysis Engine

    MVPandey
    F
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    Enables users to optimize LLM responses using Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) through a Model Context Protocol server, enhancing conversation quality by exploring multiple response branches and selecting the best path.
    49
    -

Appeared in Searches