Skip to main content
Glama

Sequential Thinking

sequential_thinking

Break down complex problems into flexible, revisable thinking steps. Adapt and evolve your analysis through branching and revision until a verified solution is reached.

Instructions

A detailed tool for dynamic and reflective problem-solving through thoughts. This tool helps analyze problems through a flexible thinking process that can adapt and evolve. 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • needsMoreThoughts: 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 nextThoughtNeeded to false when truly done and a satisfactory answer is reached

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
thoughtYesYour current thinking step
branchIdNoBranch identifier
isRevisionNoWhether this revises previous thinking
thoughtNumberNoCurrent thought number (numeric value, e.g., 1, 2, 3)
totalThoughtsNoEstimated total thoughts needed (numeric value, e.g., 5, 10)
revisesThoughtNoWhich thought is being reconsidered
branchFromThoughtNoBranching point thought number
needsMoreThoughtsNoIf more thoughts are needed
nextThoughtNeededNoWhether another thought step is needed

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
branchesYes
thoughtNumberYes
totalThoughtsYes
nextThoughtNeededYes
thoughtHistoryLengthYes
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: ability to adjust total_thoughts, question/revise, branch, express uncertainty, generate and verify hypotheses, and iterate until satisfied. No contradictions.

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 well-structured with sections for purpose, when-to-use, key features, parameters, and guidelines. While lengthy, every section provides necessary information for a complex tool. Could be slightly more concise, but effective.

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 tool's complexity (9 parameters, iterative process) and no output schema details in the input, the description covers usage extensively. The presence of an output schema (indicated in context) fills the gap for return values. Adequate for the task.

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% with all parameters described. The description's 'Parameters explained' section adds context and examples beyond the schema, such as what 'thought' can include and how 'nextThoughtNeeded' should be used. This adds value.

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 clearly states the tool is for dynamic and reflective problem-solving through thoughts, and explicitly lists use cases like breaking down complex problems, planning with room for revision, etc. It distinguishes from sibling tools that manage plans (archive_plans, get_plan, etc.) by focusing on the thinking process itself.

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 a bullet list of when to use (e.g., complex problems, planning, multi-step solutions) and a 'You should' list of guidelines. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is clear enough. No mention of alternatives, but siblings are not direct substitutes.

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/henrychong-ai/yggdrasil-mcp'

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