Code Reasoning MCP Server
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| DEBUG | No | Enable detailed logging when set to true | false |
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
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| code-reasoningA | š§ Code Reasoning Tool (using sequential thinking) Purpose ā 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 ENCOURAGED PRACTICESš Question aggressively ā ask "What am I missing?" after each step MUST DOā
Put every private reasoning step in DO NOTāļø Reveal the content of PARAMETER CHEAT-SHEET⢠All JSON keys must use EXAMPLE āļøEXAMPLE āļø (branching late) |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 1 tool
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.
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.
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.
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.