Clear Thought MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.1.2
Disambiguation3/5
The tools have overlapping purposes in problem-solving and reasoning, which could cause confusion. For example, 'collaborativereasoning', 'decisionframework', 'mentalmodel', and 'structuredargumentation' all involve structured analysis approaches, making it difficult for an agent to choose the most appropriate one. However, the detailed descriptions help differentiate them to some extent by emphasizing specific aspects like collaboration, decision-making, mental models, or argumentation.
Naming Consistency4/5
The naming is mostly consistent with a clear pattern of using descriptive, compound words (e.g., 'collaborativereasoning', 'metacognitivemonitoring'). All tools follow a similar style without mixing conventions like camelCase or snake_case. The only minor deviation is 'sequentialthinking', which uses a single word instead of a compound, but it still fits the overall readable and predictable naming scheme.
Tool Count4/5
With 11 tools, the count is reasonable for a server focused on reasoning and problem-solving methodologies. It covers a broad range of approaches without being overwhelming. However, it might be slightly heavy as some tools could be consolidated (e.g., overlapping reasoning tools), but overall, it's well-scoped for the domain of structured thinking and analysis.
Completeness4/5
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage of reasoning and problem-solving domains, including collaboration, debugging, decision-making, design, mental models, metacognition, programming paradigms, scientific methods, sequential thinking, argumentation, and visual reasoning. There are no obvious major gaps, as it spans from high-level frameworks to specific techniques. Minor gaps might exist in more niche areas, but agents can likely work around them given the breadth of tools available.
Average 2.6/5 across 11 of 11 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 18 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but omits critical behavioral details: whether diagrams persist between calls (diagramId suggests statefulness), what the 'observe' operation returns, or how the 'iteration' parameter affects behavior. No mention of error handling or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences of moderate length, reasonably structured from general to specific. However, wastes space on abstract fluff ('facilitate insight generation') without conveying concrete mechanics. Front-loaded with buzzwords rather than actionable guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Severely inadequate for complexity: 10 parameters (5 required), nested element structures, enum constraints, and no output schema. Description completely fails to explain the multi-call workflow implied by 'iteration' and 'nextOperationNeeded', leaving agents guessing about state management and response handling.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Critical failure given 0% schema coverage across 10 parameters. Description vaguely references 'operations' and 'elements' but does not explain specific enum values (e.g., difference between 'transform' and 'update', what 'nextOperationNeeded' signals, or how 'insight'/'hypothesis' parameters function as inputs vs outputs).
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?
States general capabilities (create/manipulate/interpret diagrams) but fails to differentiate from siblings like 'mentalmodel' or 'structuredargumentation'. Uses vague umbrella terms like 'visual thinking' and 'problem-solving' that could apply to multiple sibling tools.
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 on when to select this tool versus the 10 reasoning-related siblings. No mention of prerequisites, workflow context, or when visual representation is preferable to textual approaches.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and description discloses no behavioral traits. Fails to explain the iterative workflow (implied by iteration/sessionId parameters), what the tool returns (suggested next persona? full dialogue?), state persistence, or side effects. Agent cannot infer operational semantics from description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences of moderate length. Burdened by filler phrases ('A detailed tool,' 'framework for') that restate the tool category without adding specificity. Not overly verbose, but lacks informational density expected for a complex multi-step reasoning 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?
Inadequate for a 15-parameter tool managing stateful collaborative sessions. No output schema is provided, yet description doesn't explain return values. Omits explanation of the collaborative workflow (turn-taking, consensus building) and how the 8 required parameters interact.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is critically low at 20% (only sessionId and iteration documented). Description minimally compensates by referencing 'expert collaboration' and 'viewpoints,' loosely hinting at personas/contributions, but fails to explain the complex stage lifecycle, contribution types enum, or nested structures like disagreements/consensusPoints.
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?
States the tool simulates 'expert collaboration with diverse perspectives' and 'coordinating multiple viewpoints,' which clarifies the general domain. However, it fails to distinguish from sibling reasoning tools like structuredargumentation, decisionframework, or sequentialthinking, leaving ambiguity about when to select this specific approach.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the ten sibling reasoning tools. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing predefined personas), when to iterate versus terminate, or alternative approaches for the same problem type.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, yet the description fails to disclose what the tool actually produces (documentation? code templates? analysis?). No mention of side effects, persistence, or response format. 'Provides a structured approach' is vague marketing language with no concrete behavioral guarantees.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Bullet list improves readability but redundantly duplicates enum values already in the schema. First sentence is front-loaded with the core concept, though the final sentence ('Each pattern provides...') adds minimal value beyond repetition of 'structured approach'.
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?
With 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description should heavily compensate to explain inputs and outputs. Instead, it leaves parameter purposes ambiguous and fails to describe return values, making it inadequate for a tool of this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, yet the description only maps patternName enum values without explaining parameter semantics. Critical ambiguity remains: are 'implementation', 'benefits', 'tradeoffs', and 'codeExample' inputs the user provides, or outputs the tool generates? The description must resolve this since the schema is undocumented.
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?
States 'applying design patterns to software architecture' which identifies the domain, but 'applying' is vague regarding the actual mechanism (generating code, explaining concepts, validating structure?). Does distinguish from siblings like 'mentalmodel' or 'scientificmethod' by focusing specifically on software architecture.
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?
Lists supported pattern categories but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'programmingparadigm' (which overlaps conceptually) or when to select specific patterns. No prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With zero annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to state what the tool returns (code, analysis, recommendation?), whether it maintains state, or what side effects occur. The phrase 'applying' implies transformation but gives no specifics on the output format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The bulleted list of 10 paradigms consumes space but largely duplicates the enum constraint in the schema (though it provides human-readable mappings). The final sentence ('Each paradigm provides a different approach...') is generic filler that earns no value. Not overly verbose but contains redundancy.
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 7-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not clarify the relationship between the required 'problem' and 'paradigmName' versus optional arrays (benefits, limitations), leaving the agent uncertain how to construct valid invocations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage across 7 parameters, the description must compensate significantly but only maps the paradigmName enum values to readable titles. It fails to explain whether 'codeExample' is an input or output, what the 'approach' array should contain, or what 'languages' refers to (supported languages for the paradigm or target languages for generation).
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 is for 'applying different programming paradigms to solve problems,' which identifies the domain but uses the vague verb 'applying' without clarifying whether it generates code, explains concepts, analyzes solutions, or recommends paradigms. It does not distinguish from siblings like designpattern or debuggingapproach.
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 provided on when to prefer this tool over siblings such as designpattern or debuggingapproach. No prerequisites stated for the 'problem' parameter (e.g., whether it expects pseudocode, natural language, or code snippets), nor explanation of how to use the optional parameters (approach, benefits, limitations).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions 'facilitates creation,' it does not clarify whether this tool maintains state across calls, what it returns (no output schema exists), side effects, or how the dialectical chain progresses. The phrase 'detailed tool' is vague and non-descriptive of actual behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of three sentences with minimal structural waste. However, it opens with filler ('A detailed tool for') and uses three sentences to convey what could be stated more directly ('Performs dialectical argument analysis via thesis/antithesis/synthesis structures'). The progression from general to specific is logical but not maximally efficient.
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 13 parameters, complex dialectical relationships (supports/contradicts/respondsTo), and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It omits critical workflow guidance (how to chain arguments using IDs), does not explain the Hegelian dialectic model implied by the enum values, and leaves users uncertain about the tool's statefulness or return values.
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 coverage is 69%, with 'claim,' 'premises,' and 'conclusion' lacking descriptions. The description mentions 'formal argumentation structures,' which loosely implies the claim-premise-conclusion model, but does not explicitly explain these core fields or the dialectical relationships (respondsTo, supports, contradicts). It earns baseline credit for hinting at the dialectical structure matching the argumentType enum.
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 identifies the resource (arguments) and actions (creation, critique, synthesis) using terms like 'dialectical reasoning' and 'formal argumentation structures.' However, given siblings like 'collaborativereasoning,' 'sequentialthinking,' and 'scientificmethod,' it fails to specify what makes this tool distinct or when to prefer its dialectical approach over linear or other reasoning methods.
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 its many sibling reasoning tools, nor does it mention prerequisites, expected workflows (e.g., chaining thesis→antithesis→synthesis), or exclusion criteria. Users must infer applicability from the parameter schema alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden but reveals nothing about actual tool behavior—whether it returns a diagnostic plan, validates provided steps, requires iterative calls, or produces side effects. The phrase 'structured method for identifying and resolving issues' is vague and doesn't explain the output format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three-sentence structure is appropriately sized, though the final sentence ('Each approach provides...') is generic and adds minimal value beyond restating the purpose. The bulleted enumeration of methods is efficiently presented.
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 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the interaction between input parameters (e.g., whether 'steps' are inputs for validation or outputs for planning) or what constitutes a complete invocation sequence.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, requiring heavy description compensation. While it maps enum values to readable method names (helpful for 'approachName') and implies 'issue' describes the technical problem, it completely omits explanation for 'steps', 'findings', and 'resolution'—critical context given these suggest a progressive debugging workflow state.
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?
Clearly identifies the resource (debugging approaches) and action (applying) with specific enumeration of supported methods (Binary Search, Reverse Engineering, etc.). However, it fails to explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'scientificmethod' or 'sequentialthinking' that could also be used for problem-solving.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to select this tool versus alternatives like 'scientificmethod' or 'decisionframework', nor does it indicate prerequisites such as having a reproducible issue or specific technical context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. States models provide 'systematic approach' but doesn't explain what the tool actually returns (generated analysis? validation? structured output?), whether state is modified, or execution constraints.
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?
Appropriately sized with clear bullet enumeration of models. Front-loaded purpose statement followed by specific examples. No significant waste, though final sentence ('systematic approach') is somewhat redundant with earlier text.
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 5 undocumented parameters (0% coverage), no annotations, no output schema, and high sibling ambiguity, the description is insufficient. Needs to clarify parameter roles (especially steps/reasoning/conclusion), distinguish from similar tools, and disclose behavioral outcomes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%—description must compensate heavily. While it implicitly documents 'modelName' via the enum list, it fails to explain the other 4 parameters. Particularly unclear: 'steps', 'reasoning', and 'conclusion' appear to be outputs of mental model application but are listed as optional inputs without explanation of their purpose.
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?
Clear verb ('applying') and resource ('mental models'), with specific enumeration of supported models (First Principles, Pareto, etc.). However, fails to differentiate from siblings like 'decisionframework', 'sequentialthinking', or 'structuredargumentation' despite having 10+ overlapping reasoning tools.
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 provided on when to select this tool versus the 10 sibling reasoning/collaboration tools. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative recommendations mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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. While it explains what aspects are monitored, it fails to describe what happens upon invocation—whether data persists, what constitutes successful completion, or if there are side effects. It does not clarify the relationship between iterations or how the monitoringId is managed.
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 three-sentence structure is reasonably efficient and front-loaded with the core definition. However, the third sentence ('It provides a framework...') partially restates the first sentence's concept of being a 'detailed tool for systematic self-monitoring,' slightly diluting the 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 high complexity (12 parameters including nested arrays/objects, 8 required fields, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It lacks explanation of the return value, the relationship between stage iterations, and practical guidance for constructing the required nested objects (e.g., what constitutes valid supportingEvidence or knownLimitations).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With only 25% schema description coverage and complex nested objects (knowledgeAssessment, claims, reasoningSteps), the description inadequately compensates for the schema gaps. While it mentions 'knowledge boundaries,' 'claim certainty,' and 'reasoning biases' mapping to the three main object groups, it provides no guidance on how to populate these structures, the expected format for supportingEvidence, or how the stage enum values flow through a workflow.
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 defines the tool as being for 'systematic self-monitoring of knowledge and reasoning quality' with specific actions (track knowledge boundaries, claim certainty, reasoning biases). The term 'self-monitoring' distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on external collaboration (collaborativereasoning), debugging (debuggingapproach), or output generation. However, it lacks explicit contrast with other cognitive tools like sequentialthinking or structuredargumentation.
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 implies usage contexts ('metacognitive assessment across various domains'), but provides no explicit guidelines on when to use this versus the ten sibling reasoning tools. It states what the tool helps with but not when it is the optimal choice over alternatives like sequentialthinking or scientificmethod.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 hints at capabilities ('supports multiple decision frameworks') but does not clarify whether the tool performs calculations, persists state across iterations, generates reports, or simply validates input structure. It omits critical behavioral details like whether it returns analysis results or requires multiple invocations to progress through stages.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences long, which is appropriately brief, but wastes words on filler ('A detailed tool', 'This tool helps'). The content is front-loaded with adjectives rather than actionable guidance. It efficiently lists key concepts but lacks structural cues (bolding, lists) to navigate the 15-parameter complexity despite the 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?
For a complex 15-parameter tool with nested objects, enums representing workflow stages, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the iterative decision process implied by 'iteration' and 'nextStageNeeded', nor how the different analysisTypes (decision-tree vs expected-value) affect required inputs. Critical gaps remain regarding return values and side effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is critically low at 20% (only 3 of 15 parameters have descriptions). While the description mentions 'options, criteria, and outcomes' providing some semantic context for those specific arrays, it fails to explain the crucial workflow parameters ('stage', 'analysisType' with their specific enum values), 'riskTolerance' levels, or the purpose of 'recommendation' and 'rationale' fields. Given the complexity, the description inadequately compensates for the schema gaps.
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 identifies the tool's purpose as 'structured decision analysis and rational choice' with specific capabilities ('evaluate options, criteria, and outcomes', 'probability estimates', 'value judgments'). However, given the crowded sibling space with many reasoning tools (structuredargumentation, collaborativereasoning, scientificmethod, etc.), it lacks explicit differentiation criteria for when this specific framework should be selected.
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 its many sibling reasoning tools. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing defined options first), workflow sequencing (relating to the 'stage' parameter), or alternatives to avoid. Users must infer applicability from the generic 'decision analysis' label.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions the tool 'enforces' explicit variables and 'guides' through the method, hinting at validation behavior. However, it omits crucial details for a complex stage-based workflow: whether stages must be completed sequentially, what happens if required nested fields are missing, or whether inquiries persist between calls.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences with moderate redundancy ('detailed tool' is filler; 'scientific reasoning' and 'scientific method' overlap). Content is front-loaded but could be tighter. Not bloated, but phrases like 'guides models through' and 'enforces explicit' compete for similar meaning without advancing distinct information.
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 high complexity (10 parameters, deeply nested objects with 6 required sub-fields, state-machine stages), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain the iterative workflow indicated by 'iteration' and 'nextStageNeeded' parameters, the relationship between stage enum values and their corresponding payload fields, or what successful execution produces.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 30% (low), with 7 of 10 parameters undocumented including complex nested objects like 'hypothesis' and 'experiment'. While the description mentions concepts that map to these parameters (hypothesis testing, variables, predictions), it fails to explain the required object structures, enum meanings, or relationships between the stage parameter and its corresponding content fields.
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 identifies the tool applies 'formal scientific reasoning' and 'structured hypothesis testing' with specific activities like variable identification and evidence evaluation. However, it fails to differentiate from sibling tools like 'sequentialthinking' or 'structuredargumentation' which also involve step-by-step reasoning workflows.
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 provided on when to select this tool versus the numerous sibling reasoning tools (collaborativereasoning, decisionframework, etc.). No mention of prerequisites, scientific domain requirements, or when alternative reasoning approaches would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It explains the cognitive process (revisions, branching, accumulation of thoughts) implying statefulness, but fails to specify technical behaviors like side effects, persistence guarantees, rate limits, idempotency, or what constitutes the actual return value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is structured with clear sections (intro, when-to-use, procedural steps) but is excessively verbose. The 7 'when to use' bullets contain significant overlap (e.g., 'multi-step solution' vs 'multiple steps'), and the 11-item procedural list mixes high-level advice with parameter-specific instructions without clear hierarchy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides adequate procedural context but leaves critical gaps. It does not describe the output format, the storage/persistence model of thoughts, or explicit parameter mappings, making it minimally viable but incomplete for implementation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description inadequately compensates. While it discusses concepts like 'next_thought_needed' (point 11) and marking revisions (point 5), it uses snake_case descriptions that don't clearly map to the camelCase parameter names (e.g., isRevision, revisesThought, branchFromThought), leaving parameter semantics largely undocumented.
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 performs 'dynamic and reflective problem-solving through thoughts' and explains the adaptive, iterative mechanism. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this sequential approach from sibling tools like 'structuredargumentation' or 'scientificmethod', leaving some ambiguity in tool selection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides extensive 'When to use' criteria (7 specific scenarios) and detailed procedural steps (11 numbered items). This offers strong contextual guidance on when to select this tool over others, though it lacks explicit 'when NOT to use' exclusions or named alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![Clear-Thought-MCP-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/chirag127/Clear-Thought-MCP-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/chirag127/Clear-Thought-MCP-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![Clear-Thought-MCP-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/chirag127/Clear-Thought-MCP-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/chirag127/Clear-Thought-MCP-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/chirag127/Clear-Thought-MCP-server'

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