Skip to main content
Glama

create_thinking_chain

Generate structured reasoning chains to break down complex topics into sequential thinking steps for clearer problem-solving and analysis.

Instructions

thinking process|chain of thought|reasoning chain|thought flow|sequential thinking - Create sequential thinking chain

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
topicYesTopic to think about
stepsNoNumber of thinking steps

Implementation Reference

  • The core handler function that implements the create_thinking_chain tool logic, generating a structured thinking chain with steps, titles, content, and questions based on the provided topic and optional number of steps.
    export async function createThinkingChain(args: { topic: string; steps?: number }): Promise<ToolResult> {
      const { topic, steps = 5 } = args;
      
      const thinkingChain = {
        action: 'create_thinking_chain',
        topic,
        steps,
        chain: Array.from({ length: steps }, (_, i) => ({
          step: i + 1,
          title: `Step ${i + 1}: Analyze ${topic}`,
          content: `Think about ${topic} from perspective ${i + 1}`,
          questions: [
            `What are the key aspects of ${topic}?`,
            `How does this relate to the overall problem?`,
            `What are the potential implications?`
          ]
        })),
        status: 'success'
      };
      
      return {
        content: [{ type: 'text', text: `Topic: ${topic}\nSteps: ${steps}\n\n${thinkingChain.chain.map(s => `${s.step}. ${s.title}\n   ${s.content}\n   Q: ${s.questions.join(', ')}`).join('\n\n')}` }]
      };
    }
  • The ToolDefinition object defining the schema, name, description, input schema (topic required, steps optional), and annotations for the create_thinking_chain tool.
    export const createThinkingChainDefinition: ToolDefinition = {
      name: 'create_thinking_chain',
      description: 'thinking process|chain of thought|reasoning chain|thought flow|sequential thinking - Create sequential thinking chain',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          topic: { type: 'string', description: 'Topic to think about' },
          steps: { type: 'number', description: 'Number of thinking steps' }
        },
        required: ['topic']
      },
      annotations: {
        title: 'Create Thinking Chain',
        audience: ['user', 'assistant']
      }
    };
  • src/index.ts:112-118 (registration)
    Registration of the tool definition in the main tools array used for MCP ListTools endpoint, enabling tool discovery.
    // Sequential Thinking Tools
    createThinkingChainDefinition,
    analyzeProblemDefinition,
    stepByStepAnalysisDefinition,
    breakDownProblemDefinition,
    thinkAloudProcessDefinition,
    formatAsPlanDefinition,
  • src/index.ts:615-627 (registration)
    Registration in the executeToolCall switch dispatcher, mapping the tool name to its handler execution for MCP CallTool requests.
    // Sequential Thinking Tools
    case 'create_thinking_chain':
      return await createThinkingChain(args as any) as CallToolResult;
    case 'analyze_problem':
      return await analyzeProblem(args as any) as CallToolResult;
    case 'step_by_step_analysis':
      return await stepByStepAnalysis(args as any) as CallToolResult;
    case 'break_down_problem':
      return await breakDownProblem(args as any) as CallToolResult;
    case 'think_aloud_process':
      return await thinkAloudProcess(args as any) as CallToolResult;
    case 'format_as_plan':
      return await formatAsPlan(args as any) as CallToolResult;
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations provide a title ('Create Thinking Chain') but no behavioral hints (e.g., readOnlyHint, destructiveHint). The description implies a creation action ('Create sequential thinking chain'), which suggests a write operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions needed, or output format. It adds minimal context beyond the annotations, which are sparse, resulting in a baseline score.

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 concise but under-specified and poorly structured. It consists of a list of synonyms followed by a vague action, which does not effectively communicate purpose. While brief, it wastes space on tautological repetition rather than providing useful information, making it inefficient and not front-loaded with key details.

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 has no output schema and annotations are minimal, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what a 'thinking chain' is, how it is used, or what the output might look like. For a creation tool with behavioral implications, this lack of context leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for 'topic' and 'steps'. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, as it mentions no parameters. With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the schema adequately documents the parameters without needing extra explanation in the description.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description is tautological, essentially restating the tool name 'create_thinking_chain' with synonyms like 'thinking process', 'chain of thought', 'reasoning chain', 'thought flow', and 'sequential thinking'. It does not specify what the tool actually does beyond creating something related to thinking. It fails to distinguish from siblings like 'think_aloud_process' or 'step_by_step_analysis', which might have similar purposes.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given siblings like 'think_aloud_process' and 'step_by_step_analysis', the lack of differentiation is a significant gap, leaving the agent with no basis for selection.

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