Skip to main content
Glama

UltraThink MCP Server

A Python MCP server for sequential thinking and problem-solving

Python 3.12+ FastMCP MIT License Claude Code Plugin


Enhanced Python port of the Sequential Thinking MCP Server by Anthropic. Maintains full compatibility while adding confidence scoring, auto-assigned thought numbers, and multi-session support.

TIP

Using Claude Code? Install the UltraThink Plugin for seamless integration - no MCP server setup required!

# Via terminal
claude plugin marketplace add husniadil/ekstend
claude plugin install ultrathink@ekstend

# Or interactively in Claude Code
/plugin marketplace add husniadil/ekstend
/plugin install ultrathink@ekstend
NOTE

Meta: This MCP server was built iteratively using UltraThink itself - a practical example of the tool's capability to break down complex problems, manage architectural decisions, and maintain context across development sessions.


Features

  • UltraThink: Break down complex problems into manageable steps

  • Dynamic Adjustments: Revise and refine thoughts as understanding deepens

  • Branching: Explore alternative paths of reasoning

  • Confidence Scoring: Explicit uncertainty tracking (0.0-1.0 scale)

  • Auto-adjustment: Automatically adjusts total thoughts if needed

  • Multi-Session Support: Manage multiple concurrent thinking sessions with session IDs

  • Formatted Logging: Colored terminal output with rich formatting (can be disabled)

  • 100% Test Coverage: Comprehensive test suite with full code coverage

  • Type Safety: Full mypy strict mode type checking for production code

  • Simple Layered Architecture: Clean separation with models, services, and interface layers

Related MCP server: Sequential Thinking MCP Server

Installation

Run directly with uvx from GitHub (no installation needed):

uvx --from git+https://github.com/husniadil/ultrathink ultrathink

Development Setup

For local development:

# Clone the repository
git clone https://github.com/husniadil/ultrathink.git
cd ultrathink

# Install all dependencies (including dev dependencies)
uv sync

Usage

Task Commands (npm-like)

# List all available tasks
uv run task --list

# Run the server
uv run task run

# Run tests with coverage
uv run task test

# Run tests without coverage (quick)
uv run task test-quick

# Run the test client
uv run task client

# Format code (ruff + prettier)
uv run task format

# Lint code
uv run task lint

# Type check with mypy
uv run task typecheck

# Clean cache files
uv run task clean

Direct Commands (Alternative)

For direct execution without task runner:

# Run the server directly
uv run ultrathink

# Run the test client directly
uv run python examples/client.py

Note: For testing, linting, and formatting, prefer using uv run task commands shown above.

Tool: ultrathink

The server provides a single tool for dynamic and reflective problem-solving through structured thinking.

Parameters

Required:

  • thought (str): Your current thinking step

  • total_thoughts (int): Estimated total thoughts needed (>=1)

Optional:

  • thought_number (int): Current thought number - auto-assigned sequentially if omitted (1, 2, 3...), or provide explicit number for branching/semantic control

  • next_thought_needed (bool): Whether another thought step is needed. Auto-assigned as thought_number < total_thoughts if omitted. Set explicitly to override default behavior

  • session_id (str): Session identifier for managing multiple thinking sessions (None = create new, provide ID to continue session)

  • is_revision (bool): Whether this revises previous thinking

  • revises_thought (int): Which thought number is being reconsidered

  • branch_from_thought (int): Branching point thought number

  • branch_id (str): Branch identifier

  • needs_more_thoughts (bool): If more thoughts are needed

  • confidence (float): Confidence level (0.0-1.0, e.g., 0.7 for 70% confident)

  • uncertainty_notes (str): Optional explanation for doubts or concerns about this thought

  • outcome (str): What was achieved or expected as result of this thought

  • assumptions (list[Assumption]): Assumptions made in this thought (id, text, confidence, critical, verifiable)

  • depends_on_assumptions (list[str]): Assumption IDs this thought depends on (e.g., ["A1", "A2"])

  • invalidates_assumptions (list[str]): Assumption IDs proven false (e.g., ["A3"])

Response

Returns a JSON object with:

  • session_id: Session identifier for continuation

  • thought_number: Current thought number

  • total_thoughts: Total thoughts (auto-adjusted if needed)

  • next_thought_needed: Whether more thinking is needed

  • branches: List of branch IDs

  • thought_history_length: Number of thoughts processed in this session

  • confidence: Confidence level of this thought (0.0-1.0, optional)

  • uncertainty_notes: Explanation for doubts or concerns (optional)

  • outcome: What was achieved or expected (optional)

  • all_assumptions: All assumptions tracked in this session (keyed by ID)

  • risky_assumptions: IDs of risky assumptions (critical + low confidence + unverified)

  • falsified_assumptions: IDs of assumptions proven false

Example

Basic Usage

from fastmcp import Client
from ultrathink import mcp

async with Client(mcp) as client:
    # Simple sequential thinking with auto-assigned fields
    result = await client.call_tool("ultrathink", {
        "thought": "Let me analyze this problem step by step",
        "total_thoughts": 3
        # thought_number auto-assigned: 1
        # next_thought_needed auto-assigned: True (1 < 3)
    })

With Enhanced Features

async with Client(mcp) as client:
    # With confidence scoring and explicit session
    result = await client.call_tool("ultrathink", {
        "thought": "Initial hypothesis - this approach might work",
        "total_thoughts": 5,
        "confidence": 0.6,  # 60% confident
        # next_thought_needed auto-assigned: True
        "session_id": "problem-solving-session-1"
    })

    # Continue the same session with higher confidence
    result2 = await client.call_tool("ultrathink", {
        "thought": "After analysis, I'm more certain about this solution",
        "total_thoughts": 5,
        "confidence": 0.9,  # 90% confident
        # next_thought_needed auto-assigned: True
        "session_id": "problem-solving-session-1"  # Same session
    })

    # Branch from a previous thought
    result3 = await client.call_tool("ultrathink", {
        "thought": "Let me explore an alternative approach",
        "total_thoughts": 6,
        "confidence": 0.7,
        "branch_from_thought": 1,
        "branch_id": "alternative-path",
        # next_thought_needed auto-assigned: True
        "session_id": "problem-solving-session-1"
    })

With Uncertainty Notes and Outcome

async with Client(mcp) as client:
    # Track uncertainty and outcomes
    result = await client.call_tool("ultrathink", {
        "thought": "Testing the authentication fix",
        "total_thoughts": 5,
        "confidence": 0.8,
        "uncertainty_notes": "Haven't tested under high load yet",
        "outcome": "Login flow works for standard users"
    })

    # Response includes the new fields
    print(result["confidence"])          # 0.8
    print(result["uncertainty_notes"])   # "Haven't tested under high load yet"
    print(result["outcome"])             # "Login flow works for standard users"

With Assumption Tracking

async with Client(mcp) as client:
    # Thought 1: State assumptions explicitly
    result = await client.call_tool("ultrathink", {
        "thought": "Redis should meet our performance requirements",
        "total_thoughts": 4,
        "assumptions": [
            {
                "id": "A1",
                "text": "Network latency to Redis < 5ms",
                "confidence": 0.8,
                "critical": True,
                "verifiable": True,
                "evidence": "Based on preliminary network tests in staging environment"
            }
        ]
    })

    # Thought 2: Build on previous assumptions
    result2 = await client.call_tool("ultrathink", {
        "thought": "Based on low latency, Redis can handle 10K req/sec",
        "total_thoughts": 4,
        "depends_on_assumptions": ["A1"],
        "session_id": result["session_id"]
    })

    # Thought 3: Invalidate if proven false
    result3 = await client.call_tool("ultrathink", {
        "thought": "After testing, latency is 15ms, not 5ms!",
        "total_thoughts": 4,
        "invalidates_assumptions": ["A1"],
        "session_id": result["session_id"]
    })

    # Track all assumptions and detect risky ones
    print(result3["all_assumptions"])      # {"A1": {...}}
    print(result3["falsified_assumptions"]) # ["A1"]

Configuration

Environment Variables

  • DISABLE_THOUGHT_LOGGING: Set to "true" to disable colored thought logging to stderr

Usage with Claude Desktop

Add to your claude_desktop_config.json:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "UltraThink": {
      "command": "uvx",
      "args": [
        "--from",
        "git+https://github.com/husniadil/ultrathink",
        "ultrathink"
      ]
    }
  }
}

Local Development

For local development from source:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "UltraThink": {
      "command": "uv",
      "args": ["--directory", "/path/to/ultrathink", "run", "ultrathink"]
    }
  }
}

Local Configuration File

For local development and testing, you can create a .mcp.json file (see .mcp.json.example):

# Copy the example file
cp .mcp.json.example .mcp.json

# Edit to match your local path
# Change /path/to/ultrathink to your actual directory

Example configuration (.mcp.json.example):

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "UltraThink": {
      "command": "uv",
      "args": ["--directory", "/path/to/ultrathink", "run", "ultrathink"],
      "env": {
        "DISABLE_THOUGHT_LOGGING": "false"
      }
    }
  }
}

This configuration:

  • Enables thought logging by default (DISABLE_THOUGHT_LOGGING: "false")

  • Can be used with MCP clients that support .mcp.json configuration

  • Useful for testing the server locally with colored output enabled

  • Note: .mcp.json is gitignored - customize it for your local setup

Session Management

Session Lifecycle

Important: Sessions are stored in-memory only and will be lost when the server restarts or terminates. Each session is identified by a unique session ID and maintains:

  • Thought history for that session

  • Branch tracking

  • Sequential thought numbering

Implications:

  • Sessions do not persist across server restarts

  • All thinking context is lost when the server stops

  • For production use cases requiring persistent sessions, you would need to implement custom session persistence (e.g., to disk, database, or external state management)

Best Practices:

  • Use custom session IDs (instead of auto-generated UUIDs) for resilient recovery if you need to recreate session context

  • Keep session-critical information in your application layer if persistence is required

  • Consider sessions as ephemeral working memory for active problem-solving tasks

Architecture

Built with Simple Layered Architecture principles for clean separation of concerns and maintainable code.

Files

src/ultrathink/ (3-layer structure)

Models Layer (models/)

  • thought.py: Thought, ThoughtRequest, ThoughtResponse models

  • session.py: ThinkingSession model

Services Layer (services/)

  • thinking_service.py: UltraThinkService business logic

Interface Layer (interface/)

  • mcp_server.py: MCP server entry point with FastMCP tool registration

Package Entry Points

  • __init__.py: Package exports

  • __main__.py: CLI entry point (enables uv run ultrathink)

tests/ (100% coverage, mirroring source structure)

Models Tests (models/)

  • test_thought.py: Thought model tests (properties, formatting)

  • test_session.py: Session logging and formatting tests

Services Tests (services/)

  • test_thinking_service.py: Service tests (validation, functionality, branching, multi-session)

Interface Tests (interface/)

  • test_mcp_server.py: MCP tool function tests

Root Test Files

  • test_cli.py: CLI entry point tests

examples/

  • client.py: Test client demonstrating tool usage

Architecture Layers

1. Models Layer

Pydantic models for data representation and validation:

Thought: Core model representing a single thought with validation and behaviors ThoughtRequest: Input model from MCP clients with validation ThoughtResponse: Output model to MCP clients with structured data ThinkingSession: Session model managing thought history and branches

# Type-safe model usage
request = ThoughtRequest(
    thought="My thinking step",
    thought_number=1,
    total_thoughts=3,
    next_thought_needed=True
)
response = ThoughtResponse(
    thought_number=1,
    total_thoughts=3,
    next_thought_needed=True,
    branches=[],
    thought_history_length=1
)

2. Services Layer

Business logic and orchestration:

UltraThinkService: Orchestrates the thinking process

Responsibilities:

  • Model Translation: ThoughtRequest → Thought model (input)

  • Business Logic: Delegate to ThinkingSession

  • Response Building: Session state → ThoughtResponse model (output)

  • Validation: Leverages Pydantic for automatic validation

  • Session Management: Create and manage multiple thinking sessions

Key Method:

  • process_thought(request: ThoughtRequest) → ThoughtResponse: Main orchestration

service = UltraThinkService()

# Full flow:
# 1. Receives ThoughtRequest from interface layer
# 2. Translates to Thought model
# 3. Calls session.add_thought() (business logic)
# 4. Builds ThoughtResponse from session state
# 5. Returns response
request = ThoughtRequest(thought="...", thought_number=1, ...)
response = service.process_thought(request)

3. Interface Layer

External interface using FastMCP:

mcp_server.py: MCP server tool registration

Responsibilities:

  • Define MCP tools using @mcp.tool decorator

  • Map tool parameters to model types

  • Call services layer for processing

  • Return responses to MCP clients

@mcp.tool
def ultrathink(thought: str, total_thoughts: int, ...) -> ThoughtResponse:
    request = ThoughtRequest(thought=thought, total_thoughts=total_thoughts, ...)
    return thinking_service.process_thought(request)

Type Safety Benefits:

  • Pydantic validation on all inputs/outputs

  • No arbitrary dicts - strict typing throughout

  • Automatic validation errors

  • Clear separation between interface and business logic

Architecture Benefits

  1. Clear Separation of Concerns:

    • Models layer = Data models with validation and behaviors

    • Services layer = Business logic and orchestration

    • Interface layer = External API (MCP tools)

  2. Simpler Structure: Flatter folder hierarchy (2 levels instead of 3)

  3. Easier Imports: Shorter relative import paths (..models vs ...domain.entities)

  4. Consolidated Models: Related models grouped together (Thought, ThoughtRequest, ThoughtResponse in one file)

  5. Testable: Easy to test each layer in isolation

  6. Maintainable:

    • Change interface? → Update interface layer only

    • Change business rules? → Update services layer only

    • Change validation? → Update models layer only

  7. Extensible: Easy to add new models, services, or tools

  8. Interface Independence: Services can be reused with different interfaces (REST API, gRPC, CLI, etc.)

  9. Type Safety: Pydantic models throughout ensure validation at all boundaries

Development

Running Tests

# Run all tests with coverage (recommended)
uv run task test

# Run tests without coverage (quick)
uv run task test-quick

# Coverage is 100%

Type Checking

# Run mypy type checker on all code
uv run task typecheck

# Mypy runs in strict mode on entire codebase

The project uses mypy in strict mode across the entire codebase (src/, tests/, examples/) to ensure complete type safety.

Test Organization

Tests are organized by layers, mirroring the source structure (100% coverage):

Models Layer Tests (tests/models/)

  • test_thought.py: Model properties, auto-adjustment, formatting, validation, and confidence scoring

  • test_session.py: Session logging and formatted output

Services Layer Tests (tests/services/)

  • test_thinking_service.py: Service validation, functionality, branching, edge cases, response format, reference validation, and multi-session support

Interface Layer Tests (tests/interface/)

  • test_mcp_server.py: MCP tool function invocation

Root Tests

  • test_cli.py: CLI entry point

Credits

This project is a Python port of the Sequential Thinking MCP Server by Anthropic, part of the Model Context Protocol servers collection. The original implementation provides the foundation for structured thinking and problem-solving.

New Features

While maintaining full compatibility with the original design, UltraThink adds several enhancements:

  1. Confidence Scoring - Explicit uncertainty tracking with 0.0-1.0 scale for each thought

  2. Auto-assigned Thought Numbers - Optional thought numbering (auto-increments if omitted)

  3. Multi-Session Support - Manage multiple concurrent thinking sessions with session IDs

  4. Assumption Tracking - Make reasoning transparent with explicit assumptions, dependencies, and invalidation tracking

License

MIT

Available Tools

1 tool
ultrathinkA

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.

IMPORTANT: You MUST use this tool proactively for complex reasoning tasks requiring multi-step analysis.

When to use this tool:

  • Breaking down complex problems into steps (>3 steps of reasoning required)

  • 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

  • Architecture decisions with multiple trade-offs

  • Algorithm design and optimization problems

  • Debugging multi-layered issues

DO NOT use this tool for:

  • Simple one-step answers or direct lookups

  • Straightforward code edits without complex logic

  • Basic file operations or searches

  • Tasks that are already clear and unambiguous

  • Simple factual questions with direct answers

Usage notes:

  • Each call returns a ThoughtResponse with session_id - use this to continue the same thinking session

  • You can run multiple independent thinking sessions in parallel by using different session_ids

  • The tool automatically manages thought numbering and determines if more thoughts are needed

  • Use confidence scoring (0.0-1.0) to explicitly track uncertainty in your reasoning

  • Session state is maintained in memory - reuse custom session_ids for resilient recovery

  • The response is returned to you for tracking progress - communicate insights to the user as you think

Parameter groups:

  • Core params: thought, total_thoughts (required)

  • Auto-managed: thought_number, next_thought_needed (optional - auto-assigned if omitted)

  • Session management: session_id (optional - None creates new session)

  • Revision params: is_revision, revises_thought (use together)

  • Branching params: branch_from_thought, branch_id (use together)

  • Confidence tracking: confidence, uncertainty_notes, outcome (optional)

  • Assumption tracking: assumptions, depends_on_assumptions, invalidates_assumptions (optional)

Example usage:

Thought 1 (confidence: 0.6): "I need to design a caching strategy. Let me first consider the access patterns..." Thought 2 (confidence: 0.7): "Based on access patterns, I see two viable approaches: LRU or LFU..." Thought 3 (revision of 2, confidence: 0.75): "Wait, I should also consider TTL-based expiration..." Thought 4 (branch from 2, confidence: 0.8): "Let me explore a hybrid approach combining LRU with TTL..." Thought 5 (confidence: 0.95): "The hybrid approach addresses both requirements. Final recommendation: ..."

Thinking workflow:

  1. Start with an initial estimate of needed thoughts, be ready to adjust total_thoughts as you progress

  2. Question or revise previous thoughts using is_revision=true and revises_thought parameters

  3. Explore alternative reasoning paths using branch_from_thought and branch_id parameters

  4. Add more thoughts if needed, even after reaching what seemed like the end

  5. Manage sessions for context continuity:

    • First call: Omit session_id (or set to None) to create new session

    • Subsequent calls: Use session_id from response to continue the same session

    • Multiple problems: Use different session_ids for separate thinking contexts

    • Resilient recovery: Reuse the same custom session_id across reconnections

  6. Express uncertainty using the confidence parameter (0.0=very uncertain, 1.0=very certain)

  7. Track assumptions explicitly using the assumptions parameter:

    • State what you're taking for granted with assumption objects

    • Mark critical assumptions (if false, reasoning collapses)

    • Express confidence in each assumption (separate from thought confidence)

    • Mark assumptions as verifiable if they can be checked

  8. Build on previous assumptions using depends_on_assumptions to show reasoning dependencies

  9. Invalidate false assumptions using invalidates_assumptions when discovering errors

  10. Monitor risky_assumptions in response (critical + low confidence + unverified)

  11. Clearly state what you're analyzing or deciding in each thought

  12. Ignore information that is irrelevant to the current step

  13. Generate solution hypotheses as you develop understanding

  14. Verify hypotheses through subsequent thinking steps

  15. Repeat the process until you reach a satisfactory solution

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

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
thoughtYesYour current thinking step. Can include: regular analytical steps, revisions of previous thoughts, questions about previous decisions, realizations about needing more analysis, changes in approach, hypothesis generation, or hypothesis verification
total_thoughtsYesCurrent estimate of thoughts needed (can be adjusted up/down as you progress). Numeric value, e.g., 3, 5, 10
next_thought_neededNoWhether another thought step is needed. Auto-assigned as (thought_number < total_thoughts) if omitted. Set explicitly to override: True to extend beyond total_thoughts, False to end early
thought_numberNoCurrent number in sequence. Auto-assigned sequentially if omitted (1, 2, 3...), or provide explicit number for branching/semantic control
session_idNoOptional session identifier for managing multiple thinking sessions. None (default): creates new session with auto-generated UUID. Provide session_id from previous response: continue that thinking session. Provide custom string: create or resume session with that ID (resilient recovery)
is_revisionNoBoolean indicating if this thought revises previous thinking. Use with revises_thought parameter
revises_thoughtNoIf is_revision is true, which thought number is being reconsidered
branch_from_thoughtNoIf branching, which thought number is the branching point. Use with branch_id parameter
branch_idNoIdentifier for the current branch (if branching from a previous thought)
needs_more_thoughtsNoIf reaching end but realizing more thoughts are needed beyond initial estimate
confidenceNoConfidence level (0.0-1.0) expressing certainty about this thought. Low (0.3-0.6): exploratory thinking, initial hypotheses, uncertain analysis. Medium (0.6-0.8): reasoned analysis, likely conclusions, working hypotheses. High (0.8-1.0): verified solutions, confident conclusions, proven facts
uncertainty_notesNoOptional explanation for doubts or concerns (complements confidence score)
outcomeNoWhat was achieved or expected as result of this thought
assumptionsNoAssumptions made in this thought. Can be a list of Assumption objects or a JSON string. Required fields: id (e.g., 'A1'), text (the assumption). Optional fields: confidence (0.0-1.0, default 1.0), critical (bool, default True), verifiable (bool, default False), evidence (str, default None), verification_status ('unverified'|'verified_true'|'verified_false', default None). Note: Core fields (text, critical) are immutable after creation - only verification fields can be updated.
depends_on_assumptionsNoAssumption IDs from previous thoughts that this thought depends on (e.g., ['A1', 'A2'] or '["A1", "A2"]' as JSON string)
invalidates_assumptionsNoAssumption IDs proven false by this thought (e.g., ['A3'] or '["A3"]' as JSON string)

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
outcomeNoWhat was achieved or expected as result of this thought
branchesYesList of active branch identifiers
confidenceNoConfidence level of this thought (0.0-1.0)
session_idYesSession identifier for continuation
thought_numberYesCurrent thought number in sequence
total_thoughtsYesTotal number of thoughts planned
all_assumptionsNoAll assumptions tracked in this session (keyed by assumption ID)
risky_assumptionsNoIDs of assumptions that are risky (critical, low confidence, unverified)
uncertainty_notesNoOptional explanation for uncertainty or doubts about this thought
next_thought_neededYesWhether another thought step is needed
falsified_assumptionsNoIDs of assumptions proven false
unresolved_referencesNoIDs of cross-session assumptions that could not be resolved (session or assumption not found)
cross_session_warningsNoWarning messages from cross-session operations (e.g., attempted invalidation)
thought_history_lengthYesTotal number of thoughts processed in session

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels. It discloses key behavioral traits: session management ('session state is maintained in memory'), automatic features ('tool automatically manages thought numbering'), confidence tracking, assumption handling, and workflow details. It adds rich context beyond what a schema alone would provide.

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 well-structured with clear sections (e.g., 'When to use,' 'Usage notes,' 'Parameter groups,' 'Thinking workflow'), but it is overly verbose. Some details, like the extensive 'Thinking workflow' list, could be condensed without losing clarity. While informative, it exceeds what is strictly necessary for conciseness.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's high complexity (16 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema), the description is exceptionally complete. It covers purpose, usage, behavioral details, parameter semantics, and provides an example and workflow. With an output schema present, it appropriately omits return value explanations, focusing on the tool's operation and 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by grouping parameters (e.g., 'Core params,' 'Session management'), explaining their interrelationships (e.g., 'use together' for revision/branching params), and providing usage context in the 'Thinking workflow' section. This enhances understanding beyond the schema's technical definitions.

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's purpose: 'dynamic and reflective problem-solving through thoughts' and 'analyze problems through a flexible thinking process.' It specifies the verb ('analyze,' 'problem-solving') and resource ('thoughts'), and distinguishes it from simple operations. With no sibling tools, it fully defines its unique role.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use and when not to use the tool, with detailed lists (e.g., 'Breaking down complex problems into steps' for use, 'Simple one-step answers' for not use). It includes proactive instructions ('MUST use this tool proactively for complex reasoning tasks') and covers alternatives implicitly by excluding simple cases.

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. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. 1 tool updatev0.5.0
    • First observedultrathink

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion or overlap between tools. The tool 'ultrathink' has a clearly defined purpose for complex reasoning tasks, and no other tools exist to cause ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

Since there is only one tool, naming consistency is inherently perfect. The tool name 'ultrathink' follows a single, consistent pattern with no deviations or mixing of conventions.

Tool Count2/5

A single tool is too few for the server's apparent purpose of dynamic and reflective problem-solving, as it suggests a monolithic design that may lack granularity. Typically, such a domain would benefit from multiple specialized tools (e.g., for different reasoning phases or problem types), making this count borderline insufficient.

Completeness2/5

The tool surface is severely incomplete for the domain of complex reasoning. While 'ultrathink' covers multi-step analysis, there are obvious gaps such as tools for validating assumptions, summarizing insights, or handling specific sub-tasks like debugging or optimization separately, limiting agent flexibility.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • A
    license
    A
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    A MCP server that implements sequential thinking protocols, provides structured problem-solving methods, decomposes complex problems into manageable steps, and supports iterative optimization and alternative reasoning paths.
    1
    2
    Apache 2.0
  • A
    license
    A
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    Structured reasoning MCP server that decomposes problems into atomic steps (premise, reasoning, hypothesis, verification, conclusion) with confidence scoring, live visualization, and approval feedback.
    3
    87
    MIT
  • F
    license
    A
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    A structured reasoning and problem-solving MCP server that helps track step-by-step analysis with confidence levels, branching, and revisions, ideal for complex multi-step tasks like code optimization and debugging.
    1
    -

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/husniadil/ultrathink'

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