Skip to main content
Glama
mettamatt

Code Reasoning MCP Server

Server Configuration

Describes the environment variables required to run the server.

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
DEBUGNoEnable detailed logging when set to truefalse

Instructions

Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.

This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.

Capabilities

Server capabilities have not been inspected yet.

Tools

Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions

NameDescription
code-reasoningA

🧠 Code Reasoning Tool (using sequential thinking)

Purpose → break complex problems into self-auditing, exploratory thought steps that can branch, revise, or back-track until a single, well-supported answer emerges.


WHEN TO CALL

• Multi-step planning, design, debugging, or open-ended analysis
• Whenever further private reasoning or hypothesis testing is required before replying to the user


ENCOURAGED PRACTICES

šŸ” Question aggressively – ask "What am I missing?" after each step
šŸ”„ Revise freely – mark is_revision=true even late in the chain
🌿 Branch often – explore plausible alternatives in parallel; you can merge or discard branches later
ā†©ļø Back-track – if a path looks wrong, start a new branch from an earlier thought
ā“ Admit uncertainty – explicitly note unknowns and schedule extra thoughts to resolve them


MUST DO

āœ… Put every private reasoning step in thought
āœ… Keep thought_number correct; update total_thoughts when scope changes
āœ… Use is_revision & branch_from_thought/branch_id precisely
āœ… Set next_thought_needed=false only when all open questions are resolved
āœ… Abort and summarise if thought_number > 20


DO NOT

ā›”ļø Reveal the content of thought to the end-user
ā›”ļø Continue thinking once next_thought_needed=false
ā›”ļø Assume thoughts must proceed strictly linearly – branching is first-class


PARAMETER CHEAT-SHEET

• thought (string) – current reasoning step
• next_thought_needed (boolean) – request further thinking?
• thought_number (int ≄ 1) – 1-based counter
• total_thoughts (int ≄ 1) – mutable estimate
• is_revision, revises_thought (int) – mark corrections
• branch_from_thought, branch_id – manage alternative paths
• needs_more_thoughts (boolean) – optional hint that more thoughts may follow

All JSON keys must use lower_snake_case.


EXAMPLE āœ”ļø

{
  "thought": "List solution candidates and pick the most promising",
  "thought_number": 1,
  "total_thoughts": 4,
  "next_thought_needed": true
}

EXAMPLE āœ”ļø (branching late)

{
  "thought": "Alternative approach: treat it as a graph-search problem",
  "thought_number": 6,
  "total_thoughts": 8,
  "branch_from_thought": 3,
  "branch_id": "B1",
  "next_thought_needed": true
}

Prompts

Interactive templates invoked by user choice

NameDescription

No prompts

Resources

Contextual data attached and managed by the client

NameDescription

No resources

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Scored across 1 tool

Disambiguation5/5

With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion or overlap between tools. The single tool has a clearly defined purpose for code reasoning and problem-solving, so agents cannot misselect between multiple options.

Naming Consistency5/5

Since there is only one tool named 'code-reasoning', naming consistency is inherently perfect. There are no other tools to compare against, so no inconsistencies can exist in the tool set.

Tool Count2/5

A single tool for a 'Code Reasoning MCP Server' feels too minimal for the apparent scope. While the tool is feature-rich internally, the server's purpose suggests it should offer multiple specialized reasoning tools (e.g., for debugging, design, analysis) rather than one monolithic tool, making the count inappropriate.

Completeness2/5

The server claims to handle 'code reasoning' but provides only one general-purpose tool. This creates significant gaps: there are no specialized tools for different reasoning tasks (e.g., debugging vs. design), no tools for input/output handling, and no way to manage reasoning sessions independently, leading to potential agent failures in complex workflows.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessUnresponsive