Organize thoughts and decompose complex problems by logging thinking steps as a structured record without altering external data.
このツールは、考えを整理したり、複雑な問題を分解する際に使用します。外部情報の取得やデータの変更は行わず、受け取った思考内容をログとして記録します。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| thought | Yes | 思考内容（整理・記録したい考え） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the tool does not retrieve external information, does not modify data, and records the thought as a log. It could further clarify what happens after logging or whether the log is visible/returned, but for a simple thought tool this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short, front-loaded with the purpose, and each sentence contributes meaning. It avoids unnecessary detail and is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter tool with no output schema and no siblings, the description adequately covers what the tool does, when to use it, and its non-mutating/non-retrieving behavior. A brief note on return behavior or log visibility would make it fully complete, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already describes 'thought' as the content to organize/record. The description mostly restates this same concept without adding new parameter-level details, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: organizing thoughts and decomposing complex problems, plus logging the provided thought. It goes beyond the generic name 'think' by specifying the resource and action. With no sibling tools to differentiate from, this is clear and specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly states when to use the tool — when organizing thoughts or breaking down complex problems — and explicitly excludes external information retrieval and data modification. Since no alternative tools or siblings exist, it cannot name alternatives, but the use context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.