Skip to main content
Glama

analyze_problem

Break down complex problems into structured steps to analyze and approach solutions effectively.

Instructions

analyze this|how to approach|break this down|problem analysis|examine|investigate - Break down complex problem into structured steps

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
problemYesProblem to analyze
domainNoProblem domain

Implementation Reference

  • The main execution function for the 'analyze_problem' tool. It takes a problem description and optional domain, then returns a structured analysis with breakdown steps, considerations, and next steps.
    export async function analyzeProblem(args: { problem: string; domain?: string }): Promise<ToolResult> {
      const { problem, domain = 'general' } = args;
      
      const problemAnalysis = {
        action: 'analyze_problem',
        problem,
        domain,
        analysis: {
          breakdown: [
            'Define the problem clearly',
            'Identify key constraints and requirements',
            'Break down into smaller sub-problems',
            'Determine solution approach',
            'Plan implementation steps'
          ],
          considerations: [
            'What are the inputs and expected outputs?',
            'Are there any edge cases to consider?',
            'What are the performance requirements?',
            'How will this integrate with existing systems?'
          ],
          nextSteps: [
            'Research existing solutions',
            'Create detailed implementation plan',
            'Identify potential risks and mitigation strategies',
            'Define success criteria'
          ]
        },
        status: 'success'
      };
      
      return {
        content: [{ type: 'text', text: `Problem: ${problem}\nDomain: ${domain}\n\nBreakdown:\n${problemAnalysis.analysis.breakdown.map((b, i) => `${i+1}. ${b}`).join('\n')}\n\nConsiderations:\n${problemAnalysis.analysis.considerations.map(c => `- ${c}`).join('\n')}\n\nNext Steps:\n${problemAnalysis.analysis.nextSteps.map(n => `- ${n}`).join('\n')}` }]
      };
    }
  • The ToolDefinition object defining the tool's name, description, input schema, and annotations.
    export const analyzeProblemDefinition: ToolDefinition = {
      name: 'analyze_problem',
      description: 'analyze this|how to approach|break this down|problem analysis|examine|investigate - Break down complex problem into structured steps',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          problem: { type: 'string', description: 'Problem to analyze' },
          domain: { type: 'string', description: 'Problem domain' }
        },
        required: ['problem']
      },
      annotations: {
        title: 'Analyze Problem',
        audience: ['user', 'assistant']
      }
    };
  • src/index.ts:114-114 (registration)
    Registration of the tool definition in the central tools array used for listing tools.
    analyzeProblemDefinition,
  • src/index.ts:618-619 (registration)
    Dispatch case in the central tool execution switch statement that invokes the analyzeProblem handler.
    case 'analyze_problem':
      return await analyzeProblem(args as any) as CallToolResult;
  • src/index.ts:79-79 (registration)
    Import statement bringing in the handler function and definition from the implementation file.
    import { analyzeProblem, analyzeProblemDefinition } from './tools/thinking/analyzeProblem.js';
Behavior2/5

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

The description provides minimal behavioral information beyond what the annotations suggest. The annotations only provide a title ('Analyze Problem'), so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool breaks down problems into structured steps, it doesn't describe what those steps look like, whether this is a read-only analysis or if it modifies data, what the output format might be, or any limitations of the analysis. For a tool with no meaningful annotations, this is inadequate behavioral transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is poorly structured with multiple verbs separated by pipes ('analyze this|how to approach|break this down|problem analysis|examine|investigate') followed by a dash and the core description. This format is confusing and not front-loaded with the most important information. While brief, the pipe-separated list adds noise without clarity, making it less effective than a single clear sentence would be.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's apparent complexity (problem analysis with structured steps), the lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'structured steps' means, what format the analysis takes, whether there are limitations on problem types or domains, or how this differs from similar sibling tools. For an analysis tool in a crowded namespace with no structured output documentation, this description leaves too many questions unanswered.

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?

The description adds no specific information about parameters beyond what the schema already provides. With 100% schema description coverage (both parameters have descriptions in the schema), the baseline is 3. The description doesn't explain how the 'problem' and 'domain' parameters interact, provide examples of valid inputs, or clarify edge cases. It simply repeats the tool's function without enhancing parameter understanding.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the tool's purpose as 'Break down complex problem into structured steps', which is clear but somewhat vague. It doesn't specifically distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'break_down_problem' or 'step_by_step_analysis', which appear to have similar functions. The description includes multiple verbs ('analyze', 'approach', 'break down', 'examine', 'investigate') but lacks specificity about what makes this tool unique.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools that seem related (analyze_complexity, analyze_prompt, break_down_problem, step_by_step_analysis), there's no indication of when this specific 'analyze_problem' tool is appropriate versus those other analysis tools. The description doesn't mention any prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

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/ssdeanx/ssd-ai'

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