Skip to main content
Glama
bsmi021

Chain of Draft Thinking

by bsmi021

MCP ドラフトサーバーチェーン 🧠

Chain of Draft Serverは、思考と設計を体系的かつ反復的に洗練させることで、開発者がより良い意思決定を行うのに役立つ強力なAI駆動型ツールです。一般的なAIエージェントとシームレスに統合され、推論、API設計、アーキテクチャの決定、コードレビュー、実装計画への構造化されたアプローチを提供します。

🌟 特徴

コア機能

  • 反復的推論:ドラフトの連鎖プロトコルによる体系的な改善

  • 思考履歴: 推論の反復を追跡および管理する

  • 分岐サポート: 特定の推論ステップにレビューを集中

  • TypeScript サポート: Zod 検証を備えた完全な TypeScript 実装

  • エラー処理: 包括的なエラーの種類と処理

  • リアルタイムログ:組み込みのデバッグおよび監視システム

Related MCP server: Chain of Draft Prompt Tool

🚀 はじめに

前提条件

  • Node.js >= 16.0.0

  • npm >= 8.0.0

インストール

  1. リポジトリをクローンします。

git clone https://github.com/bsmi021/mcp-chain-of-draft-server.git
cd mcp-chain-of-draft-server
  1. 依存関係をインストールします:

npm install

構成

initialize.tsでのシンプルなサーバー構成:

const serverConfig = {
    name: "chain-of-draft",
    version: "1.0.0",
}

💡 使用例

議定書草案の連鎖

const thoughtData = {
    reasoning_chain: ["Initial analysis of the problem"],
    next_step_needed: true,
    draft_number: 1,
    total_drafts: 3,
    is_critique: true,
    critique_focus: "logical_consistency"
};

🛠️ 開発

プロジェクト構造

src/
├── tools/                          # Specialized Tools
│   ├── chainOfDraft/              # Core Protocol
│   └── index.ts / # Entry Point
├── utils/                         # Utilities
└── index.ts                      # Entry Point

開発サーバーの起動

npm run dev

❓ よくある質問

Chain of Draft プロトコルはどのように機能しますか?

このプロトコルは、反復的な草稿と集中的な批評を通じて思考を体系的に改善するためのガイドとなります。

批評の寸法をカスタマイズできますか?

はい!各ツールは、特定のニーズに合わせてカスタマイズされた批評の焦点をサポートしています。

ドラフトは何回計画すればいいでしょうか?

ほとんどのタスクでは 3 ~ 5 回のドラフトをお勧めしますが、複雑さに応じて調整できます。

🤝 貢献する

貢献を歓迎します!貢献ガイドラインをご確認ください。

👥 コミュニティとサポート

  • GitHub Issues - バグを報告したり機能を提案したり

  • プルリクエスト - 貢献を送信

  • ドキュメント - 詳細なドキュメントをご覧ください

📝 ライセンス

MIT ライセンス - 詳細についてはLICENSEファイルを参照してください。

🙏 謝辞

  • 貢献者と早期導入者に感謝

  • MCPコミュニティに特別な感謝を申し上げます

  • 体系的な推論方法論に触発されて


@bsmi021 が 🧠 で作成しました

Available Tools

1 tool
chain-of-draftA
# Chain of Draft (CoD): Systematic Reasoning Tool

⚠️ REQUIRED PARAMETERS - ALL MUST BE PROVIDED:

  1. reasoning_chain: string[] - At least one reasoning step

  2. next_step_needed: boolean - Whether another iteration is needed

  3. draft_number: number - Current draft number (≥ 1)

  4. total_drafts: number - Total planned drafts (≥ draft_number)

Optional parameters only required based on context:

  • is_critique?: boolean - If true, critique_focus is required

  • critique_focus?: string - Required when is_critique=true

  • revision_instructions?: string - Recommended for revision steps

  • step_to_review?: number - Specific step index to review

  • is_final_draft?: boolean - Marks final iteration

    Purpose:

    Enhances problem-solving through structured, iterative critique and revision.

    Chain of Draft is an advanced reasoning tool that enhances problem-solving through structured, iterative critique and revision. Unlike traditional reasoning approaches, CoD mimics the human drafting process to improve clarity, accuracy, and robustness of conclusions.

    When to Use This Tool:

    • Complex Problem-Solving: Tasks requiring detailed, multi-step analysis with high accuracy demands

    • Critical Reasoning: Problems where logical flow and consistency are essential

    • Error-Prone Scenarios: Questions where initial reasoning might contain mistakes or oversight

    • Multi-Perspective Analysis: Cases benefiting from examining a problem from different angles

    • Self-Correction Needs: When validation and refinement of initial thoughts are crucial

    • Detailed Solutions: Tasks requiring comprehensive explanations with supporting evidence

    • Mathematical or Logical Puzzles: Problems with potential for calculation errors or logical gaps

    • Nuanced Analysis: Situations with subtle distinctions that might be missed in a single pass

    Key Capabilities:

    • Iterative Improvement: Systematically refines reasoning through multiple drafts

    • Self-Critique: Critically examines previous reasoning to identify flaws and opportunities

    • Focused Revision: Targets specific aspects of reasoning in each iteration

    • Perspective Flexibility: Can adopt different analytical viewpoints during critique

    • Progressive Refinement: Builds toward optimal solutions through controlled iterations

    • Context Preservation: Maintains understanding across multiple drafts and revisions

    • Adaptable Depth: Adjusts the number of iterations based on problem complexity

    • Targeted Improvements: Addresses specific weaknesses in each revision cycle

    Parameters Explained:

    • reasoning_chain: Array of strings representing your current reasoning steps. Each element should contain a clear, complete thought that contributes to the overall analysis.

    • next_step_needed: Boolean flag indicating whether additional critique or revision is required. Set to true until the final, refined reasoning chain is complete.

    • draft_number: Integer tracking the current iteration (starting from 1). Increments with each critique or revision.

    • total_drafts: Estimated number of drafts needed for completion. This can be adjusted as the solution evolves.

    • is_critique: Boolean indicating the current mode:

      • true = Evaluating previous reasoning

      • false = Implementing revisions

    • critique_focus: (Required when is_critique=true) Specific aspect being evaluated, such as:

      • "logical_consistency": Checking for contradictions or flaws in reasoning

      • "factual_accuracy": Verifying correctness of facts and calculations

      • "completeness": Ensuring all relevant aspects are considered

      • "clarity": Evaluating how understandable the reasoning is

      • "relevance": Assessing if reasoning directly addresses the problem

    • revision_instructions: (Required when is_critique=false) Detailed guidance for improving the reasoning based on the preceding critique.

    • step_to_review: (Optional) Zero-based index of the specific reasoning step being critiqued or revised. When omitted, applies to the entire chain.

    • is_final_draft: (Optional) Boolean indicating whether this is the final iteration of reasoning.

    Best Practice Workflow:

    1. Start with Initial Draft: Begin with your first-pass reasoning and set a reasonable total_drafts (typically 3-5).

    2. Alternate Critique and Revision: Use is_critique=true to evaluate reasoning, then is_critique=false to implement improvements.

    3. Focus Each Critique: Choose a specific critique_focus for each evaluation cycle rather than attempting to address everything at once.

    4. Provide Detailed Revision Guidance: Include specific, actionable revision_instructions based on each critique.

    5. Target Specific Steps When Needed: Use step_to_review to focus on particular reasoning steps that need improvement.

    6. Adjust Total Drafts As Needed: Modify total_drafts based on problem complexity and progress.

    7. Mark Completion Appropriately: Set next_step_needed=false only when the reasoning chain is complete and satisfactory.

    8. Aim for Progressive Improvement: Each iteration should measurably improve the reasoning quality.

    Example Application:

    • Initial Draft: First-pass reasoning about a complex problem

    • Critique #1: Focus on logical consistency and identify contradictions

    • Revision #1: Address logical flaws found in the critique

    • Critique #2: Focus on completeness and identify missing considerations

    • Revision #2: Incorporate overlooked aspects and strengthen reasoning

    • Final Critique: Holistic review of clarity and relevance

    • Final Revision: Refine presentation and ensure direct addressing of the problem

    Chain of Draft is particularly effective when complex reasoning must be broken down into clear steps, analyzed from multiple perspectives, and refined through systematic critique. By mimicking the human drafting process, it produces more robust and accurate reasoning than single-pass approaches.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
critique_focusNoThe specific aspect or dimension being critiqued in the current evaluation (e.g., 'logical_consistency', 'factual_accuracy', 'completeness', 'clarity', 'relevance'). Required when is_critique is true.
draft_numberYesCurrent draft number in the iteration sequence (must be >= 1). Increments with each new critique or revision.
is_critiqueNoBoolean flag indicating whether the current step is a critique phase (true) evaluating previous reasoning, or a revision phase (false) implementing improvements.
is_final_draftNoBoolean flag indicating whether this is the final draft in the reasoning process. Helps signal the completion of the iterative refinement.
new_reasoning_stepsYesNew reasoning steps to add to the chain
next_step_neededYesBoolean flag indicating whether another critique or revision cycle is needed in the reasoning chain. Set to false only when the final, satisfactory conclusion has been reached.
reasoning_chainYesArray of strings representing the current chain of reasoning steps. Each step should be a clear, complete thought that contributes to the overall analysis or solution.
revision_instructionsNoDetailed, actionable guidance for how to revise the reasoning based on the preceding critique. Should directly address issues identified in the critique. Required when is_critique is false.
step_to_reviewNoZero-based index of the specific reasoning step being targeted for critique or revision. When omitted, the critique or revision applies to the entire reasoning chain.
total_draftsYesEstimated total number of drafts needed to reach a complete solution (must be >= draft_number). Can be adjusted as the solution evolves.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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 does an excellent job explaining the tool's iterative nature, critique/revision modes, parameter dependencies, and workflow patterns. However, it doesn't explicitly mention potential limitations like computational cost or time requirements for multiple iterations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is excessively long (over 800 words) with redundant sections. While well-structured with headings, it repeats information (e.g., parameter explanations appear in both the initial list and a dedicated section) and includes unnecessary elaboration that doesn't add proportional value for tool selection and invocation.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a complex 10-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description provides substantial context about workflow, usage scenarios, and behavioral patterns. It adequately compensates for the lack of structured metadata, though the absence of output information (what the tool returns) is a minor gap given the tool's complexity.

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 all parameters thoroughly. The description's 'Parameters Explained' section adds some contextual meaning (e.g., explaining what different critique_focus values represent), but mostly restates what's already in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description explicitly states the tool's purpose as 'enhances problem-solving through structured, iterative critique and revision' and provides a detailed explanation of how it works. It clearly distinguishes this as an 'advanced reasoning tool' that 'mimics the human drafting process' for improving reasoning quality, which is specific and actionable.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description includes a dedicated 'When to Use This Tool' section with 8 specific scenarios (e.g., 'Complex Problem-Solving', 'Critical Reasoning', 'Error-Prone Scenarios'), plus a 'Best Practice Workflow' with 8 steps and an 'Example Application' section. This provides comprehensive guidance on when and how to use the tool effectively.

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. 1 tool updatev1.0.0
    • First observedchain-of-draft

TDQS

A4/5.0

Scored across 1 tool

Disambiguation5/5

With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion or overlap between tools. The tool has a single, clearly defined purpose: structured iterative reasoning with critique and revision cycles. This eliminates any ambiguity in tool selection entirely.

Naming Consistency5/5

A single tool inherently has perfect naming consistency, as there are no other tools to compare it against. The tool name 'chain-of-draft' follows a clear, descriptive kebab-case pattern that matches the server name, establishing a coherent identity without any naming conflicts or variations.

Tool Count2/5

A single tool is generally too few for most server purposes, as it limits functionality and forces all operations through one interface. While this tool is complex and multi-faceted, a server with only one tool often feels thin and may not provide adequate coverage for varied tasks, suggesting a mismatch between the tool's depth and the server's scope.

Completeness3/5

The tool comprehensively covers the iterative reasoning process with parameters for drafts, critiques, and revisions, but as a single-tool server, it inherently lacks breadth. There are no obvious gaps within its defined domain of structured reasoning, but the server's overall surface is limited to this one function, which may not suffice for broader problem-solving needs.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers