Chain of Thought MCP Server
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type
@followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@Chain of Thought MCP ServerPlan how to analyze quarterly sales data and identify top-performing products"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
Chain of Thought MCP Server
Anthropic's recent article "The "think" tool: Enabling Claude to stop and think in complex tool use situations" shows that using an external think tool notably increases performance on SWE Bench.
This MCP Server uses Groq's API to call LLMs which expose raw chain-of-thought tokens from Qwen's qwq model.
Installation
Clone this repository to your local machine.
Run
uv syncto install depenciesGet a Groq API key from here.
Update your mcp configuration with:
"mcpServers": {
"chain_of_thought": {
"command": "uv",
"args": [
"--directory",
"path/to/cot-mcp-server",
"run",
"src/server.py"
],
"env": {
"GROQ_API_KEY": "your-groq-api-key"
}
}
}The path should be the local path to this repository. You can get this easily by running pwd in the terminal from the root of the repository.
Related MCP server: Local LLM MCP Tool
Instructing The AI To Use This MCP Server
I personally prefer the agent call this tool on every request to increase performance. I add this to my rules for the agent:
<IMPORTANT>
<when_to_use_tool>
You should call the mcp chain_of_thought tool every time you talk to the user, which generates a chain-of-thought stream which you will use to complete the user's request.
</when_to_use_tool>
Before taking any action or responding to the user use the chain of thought tool as a scratchpad to:
- List the specific rules that apply to the current request
- Check if all required information is collected
- Verify that the planned action complies with all policies
- Iterate over tool results for correctness
Here are some examples of what to iterate over inside the think tool:
<cot_tool_example_1>
User wants to cancel flight ABC123
- Need to verify: user ID, reservation ID, reason
- Check cancellation rules:
* Is it within 24h of booking?
* If not, check ticket class and insurance
- Verify no segments flown or are in the past
- Plan: collect missing info, verify rules, get confirmation
</cot_tool_example_1>
<cot_tool_example_2>
User wants to book 3 tickets to NYC with 2 checked bags each
- Need user ID to check:
* Membership tier for baggage allowance
* Which payments methods exist in profile
- Baggage calculation:
* Economy class × 3 passengers
* If regular member: 1 free bag each → 3 extra bags = $150
* If silver member: 2 free bags each → 0 extra bags = $0
* If gold member: 3 free bags each → 0 extra bags = $0
- Payment rules to verify:
* Max 1 travel certificate, 1 credit card, 3 gift cards
* All payment methods must be in profile
* Travel certificate remainder goes to waste
- Plan:
1. Get user ID
2. Verify membership level for bag fees
3. Check which payment methods in profile and if their combination is allowed
4. Calculate total: ticket price + any bag fees
5. Get explicit confirmation for booking
</cot_tool_example_2>
</IMPORTANT>Available Tools
1 toolchain_of_thoughtD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| prompt | Yes |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
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. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
1 tool update
v0.1.0- First observed
chain_of_thought
TDQS
Scored across 1 tool
With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion or overlap between tools. The single tool 'chain_of_thought' stands alone with a distinct purpose, making disambiguation trivial.
The tool name 'chain_of_thought' uses a consistent snake_case format. Since there is only one tool, naming consistency is inherently perfect with no deviations or mixed conventions to evaluate.
A single tool is generally too few for most server purposes, as it limits functionality and scope. This suggests the server may be under-scoped or incomplete, unless the domain is extremely narrow, which is not indicated here.
With only one tool, the surface is severely incomplete. It lacks any CRUD operations, lifecycle coverage, or complementary functions, making it impossible to perform meaningful workflows or tasks in the domain implied by the server name.
Maintenance
Resources
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
Looking for Admin?
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Related MCP Connectors
Hosted MCP server connecting claude.ai, ChatGPT and other AI apps to your own computer
MCP server for AI dialogue using various LLM models via AceDataCloud
MCP server for Qwen Image 3 AI image generation
MCP server for GLM chat completions using Zhipu AI models via AceDataCloud
Related MCP Servers
- FlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceA lightweight MCP server that provides a unified interface to various LLM providers including OpenAI, Anthropic, Google Gemini, Groq, DeepSeek, and Ollama.6738-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceA local MCP server that runs Llama models entirely on your machine. No API keys, no cloud costs, 100% private and offline-capable.MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceA VRAM-aware MCP server that offloads token-heavy development tasks to local Ollama models, saving API tokens for complex reasoning.889MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceA proof-of-concept MCP server that enables LLMs to read local text files and fetch real-time weather data through external tools.-
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
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/beverm2391/chain-of-thought-mcp-server'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server