Sequential Thinking MVP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation3/5
The tools have overlapping purposes that could cause confusion. get_session_summary, get_thought_sequence, and get_thought_branch all retrieve session-related data, with unclear boundaries between summary, sequence, and branch. sequential_thinking is distinct as it facilitates the thinking process, but the retrieval tools are ambiguous.
Naming Consistency4/5
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern, with all using snake_case. However, sequential_thinking deviates slightly by using an adjective-noun format instead of a verb, which is a minor inconsistency in an otherwise predictable naming scheme.
Tool Count5/5
With 5 tools, the count is well-scoped for a thinking session server. This number is appropriate for managing sessions, retrieving data, and facilitating thinking processes, with each tool earning its place without feeling too heavy or thin.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers core CRUD-like operations for thinking sessions: create (reset_thinking_session), read (get_* tools), and process (sequential_thinking). A minor gap exists in update or delete operations for sessions or thoughts, but agents can work around this with resets.
Average 3/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it 'Gets a summary' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as what the summary contains, whether it's read-only, if it requires permissions, or how it handles errors. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 that directly states the tool's function. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes the key detail about default behavior, with no wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.
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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the summary contains, its format, or how it relates to sibling tools. For a retrieval tool in a thinking session context, more detail 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.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'sessionId' documented as optional and defaulting to the current session. The description adds minimal value beyond this, as it only reiterates the default behavior without providing additional context like format examples or edge cases.
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 verb ('Gets') and resource ('summary of the current or specified thinking session'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_thought_branch or get_thought_sequence, which might also retrieve thinking-related data.
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 like get_thought_branch or get_thought_sequence. It mentions the default behavior (current session) but doesn't explain scenarios where this summary is preferred over other retrieval tools.
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. It states the tool retrieves data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it's safe, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens on errors. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with potential complexity in handling reasoning paths.
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 that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 handling 'alternative reasoning paths' and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'branch' entails, the return format, or how it relates to 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'branchId' and 'sessionId'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. However, the baseline is 3 since the schema adequately covers the 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 ('Retrieves') and resource ('a specific branch of alternative reasoning paths'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_thought_sequence' or 'get_session_summary', which might have overlapping retrieval functions, so it doesn't achieve full distinction.
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 sibling tools like 'get_thought_sequence' or 'get_session_summary', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'complete sequence' entails (e.g., format, pagination). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with potential complexity.
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 that efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a retrieval tool. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., structure of the thought sequence), potential side effects, 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'sessionId' well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond this, only implying the parameter's optional nature ('current or specified session'), which is already covered in the schema's description. 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.
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 ('retrieves') and resource ('complete sequence of thoughts'), making it understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_session_summary' or 'get_thought_branch', which likely retrieve related but different data, preventing a perfect score.
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 sibling tools or contexts where this retrieval is preferred over others, leaving the agent with no explicit usage instructions beyond the basic purpose.
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. It describes the tool's function but lacks critical details: it doesn't mention if this tool creates, updates, or retrieves data; what the output looks like; or any side effects like persistence or session management. This is a significant gap for a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema.
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 concise and well-structured in two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value by explaining the tool's role and key features. However, it could be slightly more efficient by integrating the second sentence's details into the first without losing clarity.
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 (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how it interacts with sibling tools, or the behavioral implications of using it. For a tool that likely manages state or sessions, this lack of context makes it inadequate for an agent to use effectively without trial and error.
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 9 parameters. The description adds no specific parameter information beyond implying a sequential process. It mentions 'step-by-step' and 'branch into alternative paths,' which loosely relate to parameters like 'thoughtNumber' and 'branchId,' but doesn't provide additional syntax or usage context. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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.
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: 'Facilitates a detailed, step-by-step thinking process for problem-solving and analysis.' It specifies the verb 'facilitates' and the resource 'thinking process,' and outlines key actions like breaking down problems and branching reasoning. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_thought_sequence' or 'reset_thinking_session,' which prevents a perfect score.
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 siblings. It mentions general activities like 'problem-solving and analysis' but doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for initiating a session versus retrieving one, leaving 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.
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. It states the tool clears the current thought sequence, which implies a destructive action, but doesn't specify if this is reversible, what happens to previous data, or any side effects like resetting session state. More context on the mutation's impact is needed.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key action ('starts a new thinking session') and adds necessary detail ('clearing the current thought sequence') without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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 tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the basic purpose adequately. However, as a mutation tool (implied by 'clearing'), it lacks details on behavioral traits like reversibility or effects on sibling tools, making it only minimally viable for the context.
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, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, which is efficient, but since there are no parameters to explain, it doesn't fully earn a 5 for adding value beyond the schema.
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 ('starts a new thinking session') and the effect ('clearing the current thought sequence'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'sequential_thinking' which might also involve session management, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
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 when wanting to start fresh by clearing thoughts, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'sequential_thinking' or 'get_session_summary', nor any prerequisites or exclusions. It lacks detailed context for tool selection.
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:

[![Mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/fmangot/Mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/fmangot/Mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![Mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/fmangot/Mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/fmangot/Mcp)

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/fmangot/Mcp'

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