Skip to main content
Glama
olaservo

Shannon Thinking MCP Server

by olaservo
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    With only one tool, there is no risk of confusion between tools. The tool's purpose is clearly described and stands alone.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    A single tool name 'shannonthinking' is trivially consistent. No naming conflicts or inconsistencies exist.

    Tool Count2/5

    One tool for a complex problem-solving methodology is minimal. The tool is monolithic, handling all thought types via parameters, which reduces modularity and discoverability.

    Completeness4/5

    The tool covers all key stages of problem-solving (definition, constraints, modeling, proof, implementation, iteration) and includes validation and revision features. However, packing everything into one tool limits granularity and specialized access.

  • Average 4/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • 0 of 3 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
    • 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
    • Last stable release on
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior4/5

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

    With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It thoroughly explains the iterative nature, support for revisions, re-examination, and tracking of assumptions and confidence levels. It leaves little ambiguity about how the tool operates.

    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 but is somewhat verbose, especially the 'Key features' and iterative process parts which are partially redundant with the 'Parameters explained' and usage guidelines. It could be more concise.

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

    Completeness4/5

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

    Given the tool's complexity (14 parameters, nested objects) and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the methodology, parameter purposes, and iterative workflow. However, it does not specify what the tool returns or how errors are handled.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters3/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'Parameters explained' section reiterates schema descriptions, adding some context (e.g., 'Which previous thoughts this builds upon') but does not provide significant new meaning beyond what the schema already states.

    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 defines the tool as a problem-solving tool inspired by Claude Shannon's systematic approach. It explicitly states the verb (break down problems) and resource (Shannon's methodology), and lists specific use cases, making its purpose unmistakable.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines4/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The description provides an extensive list of when to use the tool, covering complex systems, engineering, optimization, etc. It also outlines the iterative process and key features. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or suggest alternatives, but given no siblings, this is acceptable.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

shannon-thinking MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

shannon-thinking MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

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/olaservo/shannon-thinking'

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