El MCP estándar sequential-thinking proporciona una gran herramienta para el razonamiento mediante cadena de pensamiento, pero sufre del problema del "teléfono descompuesto" en entornos multi-agente, donde los agentes pueden alucinar pensamientos sin fundamento con confianza, lo que contamina la ventana de contexto.
krusch-sequential-mcp resuelve esto introduciendo un Filtrado de Plausibilidad Semántica junto con una capa de persistencia en PostgreSQL mediante DBOS altamente confiable.
🧠 Filtrado de Plausibilidad Semántica: Rechaza de forma autónoma pensamientos desviados o alucinados mediante un evaluador de modelo de borde.
💾 Persistencia en PostgreSQL mediante DBOS: Persiste de forma sincrónica cada pensamiento, rama y revisión en una tabla dbos_thoughts, creando un DAG de razonamiento auditable.
🛑 Confiabilidad de estado determinista: Detiene la ejecución de pensamientos contaminados, obligando a los agentes a reevaluar su ruta de razonamiento.
🔌 Reemplazo directo: Totalmente compatible con la interfaz estándar sequential-thinking mientras admite el nuevo parámetro groundingContext.
📦 Cero dependencias externas: El evaluador de plausibilidad es totalmente autónomo; no se requiere un kit de herramientas externo.
Related MCP server: Tyra Advanced Memory MCP Server
Cuando un agente propone un pensamiento, el evaluador interno lo analiza frente al groundingContext proporcionado.
graph TD;
A[Agent Thought Proposed] --> B{Grounding Context Provided?};
B -- No --> C[Accept & Persist to DBOS];
B -- Yes --> D[Edge Model Evaluator];
D -- Plausible --> C;
D -- Hallucinated/Drifted --> E[Reject Thought];
E --> F[Return Soft Error to Agent];
F --> G[Agent Re-evaluates];npm install -g krusch-sequential-mcpO configúrelo en su archivo de configuración de MCP (por ejemplo, claude_desktop_config.json o .cursor/mcp.json):
{
"mcpServers": {
"krusch-sequential-mcp": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "krusch-sequential-mcp"]
}
}
}Los agentes pueden invocar la herramienta sequentialthinking con los parámetros estándar (thought, thoughtNumber, totalThoughts, nextThoughtNeeded, etc.).
Para activar la puerta de plausibilidad, incluya el parámetro groundingContext en su llamada a la herramienta:
{
"thought": "Since the user is asking about the database schema, I will assume it uses MongoDB and write a query for it.",
"thoughtNumber": 1,
"totalThoughts": 3,
"nextThoughtNeeded": true,
"groundingContext": "The current codebase exclusively uses DBOS PostgreSQL for persistence. No NoSQL databases are present."
}Debido a que el pensamiento entra en conflicto con el groundingContext, el evaluador lo rechazará de forma autónoma, devolviendo un error al agente para que replantee su enfoque.
Variable | Requerido | Predeterminado | Descripción |
| No | (ninguno — persistencia deshabilitada) | Cadena de conexión a PostgreSQL (ej. |
| No |
| URL base para el servicio Ollama para comprobaciones de plausibilidad. |
| No |
| Modelo de Ollama utilizado para el filtrado de plausibilidad. Debe ser un modelo pequeño y rápido. |
Copie .env.example para un inicio rápido:
cp .env.example .env¡Agradecemos las contribuciones! Asegúrese de que sus pruebas pasen y cumplan con los estándares de formato del proyecto.
Ejecute las pruebas mediante npm run build y npm start (o node build/index.js).
Licencia MIT © 2026 kruschdev
A detailed tool for dynamic and reflective problem-solving through thoughts. Augmented with Semantic Plausibility Gating.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| thought | Yes | Your current thinking step | |
| branchId | No | Branch identifier | |
| isRevision | No | Whether this revises previous thinking | |
| thoughtNumber | Yes | Current thought number | |
| totalThoughts | Yes | Estimated total thoughts needed | |
| revisesThought | No | Which thought is being reconsidered | |
| groundingContext | No | OPTIONAL: Provide the source context for this thought. The server will independently verify the plausibility of your thought against this context. | |
| branchFromThought | No | Branching point thought number | |
| needsMoreThoughts | No | If more thoughts are needed | |
| nextThoughtNeeded | Yes | Whether another thought step is needed |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Semantic Plausibility Gating' which hints at a verification mechanism, but does not explain how it works, what data is stored, or any side effects. The schema's groundingContext field description provides some behavior, but the main description is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's operational characteristics.
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 very short at one sentence, which is lean but not necessarily well-structured. It front-loads the core concept, but the single sentence lacks detail that could be organized in a more informative way. It is not overly verbose, but it doesn't make effective use of its brevity.
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 complex tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the workflow (e.g., how to sequence thoughts, the meaning of branchId, revision, nextThoughtNeeded), nor does it describe the plausibility gating behavior beyond naming it. The schema helps but the description leaves the agent without context on how to use the tool effectively.
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?
All 10 parameters have schema descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The main description adds no parameter-specific meaning, and it doesn't mention any relationships between params. However, given 100% schema coverage, the schema itself is sufficient for understanding parameters.
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 describes the tool as 'for dynamic and reflective problem-solving through thoughts', which conveys the general domain but lacks a specific action verb (e.g., submit, record) or resource. The name 'sequentialthinking' partially compensates, but the description alone doesn't clarify what the tool does beyond generic problem-solving.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus other tools. No alternatives are mentioned, and no context is provided about the appropriate use case. The description simply states what it is without indications of when it should be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0sequentialthinkingScored across 1 tool
Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility of confusion or overlap. The tool's purpose is singular and clear.
With a single tool, naming consistency is trivially satisfied. The name 'sequentialthinking' is descriptive and matches the server's focus.
The server has exactly one tool, which feels minimal. While it is appropriate for a focused sequential thinking utility, the count is on the borderline of being too thin.
The tool appears to provide a comprehensive capability for sequential thinking and problem-solving. However, being the only tool, there may be missing auxiliary operations like reset or history, though no obvious gaps are evident.
Cloud-hosted MCP server for durable AI memory
Hosted MCP server connecting claude.ai, ChatGPT and other AI apps to your own computer
MCP server for AI dialogue using various LLM models via AceDataCloud
Capability registry for the agentic economy. Semantic search over verified MCP server listings.
