Skip to main content
Glama
darbotlabs

Darbot Deepmind MCP Server

by darbotlabs

darbot_deepmind

Analyze complex problems through structured thinking that adapts and evolves as understanding deepens, enabling dynamic problem-solving with revision and multi-step reasoning.

Instructions

Darbot Deepmind: A sophisticated tool for dynamic and reflective problem-solving through structured thinking. This tool helps analyze complex problems through an adaptive thinking process that evolves with understanding. Each thought can build on, question, or revise previous insights as understanding deepens.

When to use this tool:

  • Breaking down complex problems into steps

  • Planning and design with room for revision

  • Analysis that might need course correction

  • Problems where the full scope might not be clear initially

  • Problems that require a multi-step solution

  • Tasks that need to maintain context over multiple steps

  • Situations where irrelevant information needs to be filtered out

Key features:

  • You can adjust total_thoughts up or down as you progress

  • You can question or revise previous thoughts

  • You can add more thoughts even after reaching what seemed like the end

  • You can express uncertainty and explore alternative approaches

  • Not every thought needs to build linearly - you can branch or backtrack

  • Generates a solution hypothesis

  • Verifies the hypothesis based on the Chain of Thought steps

  • Repeats the process until satisfied

  • Provides a correct answer

Parameters explained:

  • thought: Your current thinking step, which can include:

    • Regular analytical steps

    • Revisions of previous thoughts

    • Questions about previous decisions

    • Realizations about needing more analysis

    • Changes in approach

    • Hypothesis generation

    • Hypothesis verification

  • next_thought_needed: True if you need more thinking, even if at what seemed like the end

  • thought_number: Current number in sequence (can go beyond initial total if needed)

  • total_thoughts: Current estimate of thoughts needed (can be adjusted up/down)

  • is_revision: A boolean indicating if this thought revises previous thinking

  • revises_thought: If is_revision is true, which thought number is being reconsidered

  • branch_from_thought: If branching, which thought number is the branching point

  • branch_id: Identifier for the current branch (if any)

  • needs_more_thoughts: If reaching end but realizing more thoughts needed

You should:

  1. Start with an initial estimate of needed thoughts, but be ready to adjust

  2. Feel free to question or revise previous thoughts

  3. Don't hesitate to add more thoughts if needed, even at the "end"

  4. Express uncertainty when present

  5. Mark thoughts that revise previous thinking or branch into new paths

  6. Ignore information that is irrelevant to the current step

  7. Generate a solution hypothesis when appropriate

  8. Verify the hypothesis based on the Chain of Thought steps

  9. Repeat the process until satisfied with the solution

  10. Provide a single, ideally correct answer as the final output

  11. Only set next_thought_needed to false when truly done and a satisfactory answer is reached

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
thoughtYesYour current thinking step
nextThoughtNeededYesWhether another thought step is needed
thoughtNumberYesCurrent thought number
totalThoughtsYesEstimated total thoughts needed
isRevisionNoWhether this revises previous thinking
revisesThoughtNoWhich thought is being reconsidered
branchFromThoughtNoBranching point thought number
branchIdNoBranch identifier
needsMoreThoughtsNoIf more thoughts are needed

Implementation Reference

  • Core handler method in DarbotDeepmindServer class that validates input using Zod schema, performs additional validations, manages thought history and branches, formats and logs thoughts, and returns structured JSON response or error.
    public processThought(input: unknown): { content: Array<{ type: string; text: string }>; isError?: boolean } {
      try {
        // Validate input with Zod schema
        const validatedInput = DeepmindSchema.parse(input);
    
        // Additional validation
        this.validateRevision(validatedInput);
        this.validateBranching(validatedInput);
        this.adjustTotalThoughts(validatedInput);
    
        // Store in history
        this.thoughtHistory.push(validatedInput);
    
        // Handle branching
        if (validatedInput.branchFromThought && validatedInput.branchId) {
          if (!this.branches[validatedInput.branchId]) {
            this.branches[validatedInput.branchId] = [];
          }
          this.branches[validatedInput.branchId].push(validatedInput);
        }
    
        // Log thought if not disabled
        if (!this.disableThoughtLogging) {
          const formattedThought = this.formatThought(validatedInput);
          console.error(formattedThought);
        }
    
        // Prepare response
        const response: ThoughtResponse = {
          thoughtNumber: validatedInput.thoughtNumber,
          totalThoughts: validatedInput.totalThoughts,
          nextThoughtNeeded: validatedInput.nextThoughtNeeded,
          branches: Object.keys(this.branches),
          thoughtHistoryLength: this.thoughtHistory.length,
        };
    
        // Add optional fields if present
        if (validatedInput.isRevision) {
          response.isRevision = validatedInput.isRevision;
          response.revisesThought = validatedInput.revisesThought;
        }
        if (validatedInput.branchId) {
          response.branchId = validatedInput.branchId;
          response.branchFromThought = validatedInput.branchFromThought;
        }
        if (validatedInput.needsMoreThoughts !== undefined) {
          response.needsMoreThoughts = validatedInput.needsMoreThoughts;
        }
    
        return {
          content: [{
            type: "text",
            text: JSON.stringify(response, null, 2)
          }]
        };
    
      } catch (error) {
        const errorMessage = error instanceof z.ZodError 
          ? `Validation error: ${error.errors.map(e => `${e.path.join('.')}: ${e.message}`).join(', ')}`
          : error instanceof Error 
          ? error.message 
          : String(error);
    
        return {
          content: [{
            type: "text",
            text: JSON.stringify({
              error: errorMessage,
              status: 'failed'
            }, null, 2)
          }],
          isError: true
        };
      }
    }
  • Zod schema used for validating and typing the inputs to the darbot_deepmind tool.
    const DeepmindSchema = z.object({
      thought: z.string().min(1).describe("The current thinking step"),
      nextThoughtNeeded: z.boolean().describe("Whether another thought step is needed"),
      thoughtNumber: z.number().int().positive().describe("Current thought number"),
      totalThoughts: z.number().int().positive().describe("Estimated total thoughts needed"),
      isRevision: z.boolean().optional().describe("Whether this revises previous thinking"),
      revisesThought: z.number().int().positive().optional().describe("Which thought is being reconsidered"),
      branchFromThought: z.number().int().positive().optional().describe("Branching point thought number"),
      branchId: z.string().optional().describe("Branch identifier"),
      needsMoreThoughts: z.boolean().optional().describe("If more thoughts are needed"),
    });
  • src/index.ts:231-333 (registration)
    MCP Tool object definition for 'darbot_deepmind' including name, detailed description, and inputSchema matching the Zod schema.
    const DARBOT_DEEPMIND_TOOL: Tool = {
      name: "darbot_deepmind",
      description: `Darbot Deepmind: A sophisticated tool for dynamic and reflective problem-solving through structured thinking.
    This tool helps analyze complex problems through an adaptive thinking process that evolves with understanding.
    Each thought can build on, question, or revise previous insights as understanding deepens.
    
    When to use this tool:
    - Breaking down complex problems into steps
    - Planning and design with room for revision
    - Analysis that might need course correction
    - Problems where the full scope might not be clear initially
    - Problems that require a multi-step solution
    - Tasks that need to maintain context over multiple steps
    - Situations where irrelevant information needs to be filtered out
    
    Key features:
    - You can adjust total_thoughts up or down as you progress
    - You can question or revise previous thoughts
    - You can add more thoughts even after reaching what seemed like the end
    - You can express uncertainty and explore alternative approaches
    - Not every thought needs to build linearly - you can branch or backtrack
    - Generates a solution hypothesis
    - Verifies the hypothesis based on the Chain of Thought steps
    - Repeats the process until satisfied
    - Provides a correct answer
    
    Parameters explained:
    - thought: Your current thinking step, which can include:
      * Regular analytical steps
      * Revisions of previous thoughts
      * Questions about previous decisions
      * Realizations about needing more analysis
      * Changes in approach
      * Hypothesis generation
      * Hypothesis verification
    - next_thought_needed: True if you need more thinking, even if at what seemed like the end
    - thought_number: Current number in sequence (can go beyond initial total if needed)
    - total_thoughts: Current estimate of thoughts needed (can be adjusted up/down)
    - is_revision: A boolean indicating if this thought revises previous thinking
    - revises_thought: If is_revision is true, which thought number is being reconsidered
    - branch_from_thought: If branching, which thought number is the branching point
    - branch_id: Identifier for the current branch (if any)
    - needs_more_thoughts: If reaching end but realizing more thoughts needed
    
    You should:
    1. Start with an initial estimate of needed thoughts, but be ready to adjust
    2. Feel free to question or revise previous thoughts
    3. Don't hesitate to add more thoughts if needed, even at the "end"
    4. Express uncertainty when present
    5. Mark thoughts that revise previous thinking or branch into new paths
    6. Ignore information that is irrelevant to the current step
    7. Generate a solution hypothesis when appropriate
    8. Verify the hypothesis based on the Chain of Thought steps
    9. Repeat the process until satisfied with the solution
    10. Provide a single, ideally correct answer as the final output
    11. Only set next_thought_needed to false when truly done and a satisfactory answer is reached`,
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          thought: {
            type: "string",
            description: "Your current thinking step"
          },
          nextThoughtNeeded: {
            type: "boolean",
            description: "Whether another thought step is needed"
          },
          thoughtNumber: {
            type: "integer",
            description: "Current thought number",
            minimum: 1
          },
          totalThoughts: {
            type: "integer",
            description: "Estimated total thoughts needed",
            minimum: 1
          },
          isRevision: {
            type: "boolean",
            description: "Whether this revises previous thinking"
          },
          revisesThought: {
            type: "integer",
            description: "Which thought is being reconsidered",
            minimum: 1
          },
          branchFromThought: {
            type: "integer",
            description: "Branching point thought number",
            minimum: 1
          },
          branchId: {
            type: "string",
            description: "Branch identifier"
          },
          needsMoreThoughts: {
            type: "boolean",
            description: "If more thoughts are needed"
          }
        },
        required: ["thought", "nextThoughtNeeded", "thoughtNumber", "totalThoughts"]
      }
    };
  • src/index.ts:355-357 (registration)
    Registration of listTools request handler that returns the darbot_deepmind tool.
    server.setRequestHandler(ListToolsRequestSchema, async () => ({
      tools: [DARBOT_DEEPMIND_TOOL],
    }));
  • MCP callTool request handler that dispatches to processThought if tool name is 'darbot_deepmind'.
    // Handle call tool request
    server.setRequestHandler(CallToolRequestSchema, async (request) => {
      if (request.params.name === "darbot_deepmind") {
        return thinkingServer.processThought(request.params.arguments);
      }
    
      throw new McpError(
        ErrorCode.MethodNotFound,
        `Unknown tool: ${request.params.name}`
      );
    });
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool allows iterative adjustment of thoughts, supports revisions and branching, generates and verifies hypotheses, repeats until satisfied, and outputs a final answer. It covers process flow, flexibility, and output expectations, though it doesn't mention performance aspects like rate limits or error handling.

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 400 words) with redundant sections. It repeats concepts (e.g., revision and branching are mentioned multiple times) and includes verbose lists that could be condensed. While structured with headings, it lacks front-loading of critical information and contains unnecessary elaboration, reducing efficiency for an AI agent.

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?

Given the complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is quite complete: it explains the tool's purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral process, and parameter semantics in detail. It covers the iterative nature, hypothesis generation, and final output. However, it doesn't specify the format or content of the 'correct answer' output, leaving a minor gap.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value with a 'Parameters explained' section that elaborates on each parameter's purpose and usage context (e.g., 'thought' can include revisions, questions, hypotheses; 'next_thought_needed' for adding thoughts even at the end). This provides semantic meaning beyond the schema's basic descriptions, compensating well for the high parameter count.

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 'dynamic and reflective problem-solving through structured thinking' and 'helps analyze complex problems through an adaptive thinking process', which provides a general purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what concrete action the tool performs (e.g., does it execute analysis, generate reports, or simulate thinking?) and doesn't distinguish from siblings (though none exist). The description is vague about the actual output or mechanism beyond the thinking process.

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 clear 'When to use this tool' section with 7 specific scenarios (e.g., 'Breaking down complex problems into steps', 'Planning and design with room for revision'), providing explicit guidance on when this tool is appropriate. It also lists 11 'You should' instructions that further clarify usage, though no alternatives are mentioned (but no siblings exist).

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

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

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/darbotlabs/Darbot-Deepmind-MCP'

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