Skip to main content
Glama

think_aloud_process

Generate step-by-step reasoning processes for scenarios using analytical, creative, systematic, or critical thinking perspectives to clarify problem-solving approaches.

Instructions

think about|consider|what do you think|think about it|let me think|reasoning - Generate think-aloud reasoning process

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scenarioYesScenario or problem to think through
perspectiveNoThinking perspective
verbosityNoVerbosity level

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function implementing the think_aloud_process tool. Generates a structured think-aloud reasoning process with steps, questions, conclusions, and metacognition based on the provided scenario, perspective, and verbosity.
    export async function thinkAloudProcess(args: { scenario: string; perspective?: string; verbosity?: string }): Promise<ToolResult> {
      const { scenario, perspective = 'analytical', verbosity = 'moderate' } = args;
      
      const thoughtCount = verbosity === 'concise' ? 3 : verbosity === 'moderate' ? 5 : 8;
      const thinkAloudResult = {
        action: 'think_aloud_process',
        scenario,
        perspective,
        verbosity,
        thoughtProcess: Array.from({ length: thoughtCount }, (_, i) => {
          const thoughtNum = i + 1;
          let thoughtStyle = '';
          
          switch (perspective) {
            case 'analytical':
              thoughtStyle = `Analyzing: Let me examine ${scenario} systematically...`;
              break;
            case 'creative':
              thoughtStyle = `Brainstorming: What if I approach ${scenario} differently...`;
              break;
            case 'systematic':
              thoughtStyle = `Step ${thoughtNum}: Following systematic approach to ${scenario}...`;
              break;
            case 'critical':
              thoughtStyle = `Questioning: What assumptions am I making about ${scenario}...`;
              break;
          }
          
          return {
            stepNumber: thoughtNum,
            thought: thoughtStyle,
            reasoning: `In step ${thoughtNum}, I need to consider the implications of ${scenario} from a ${perspective} perspective`,
            questions: [
              `What do I know about this aspect of ${scenario}?`,
              `What don't I know yet?`,
              `What should I explore next?`
            ],
            conclusions: [
              `Based on current analysis...`,
              `This leads me to think that...`,
              `Next I should focus on...`
            ],
            confidence: Math.min(95, 60 + (thoughtNum * 5))
          };
        }),
        metacognition: {
          thinkingStyle: perspective,
          processEffectiveness: verbosity === 'verbose' ? 'highly detailed' : verbosity === 'moderate' ? 'balanced' : 'efficient',
          nextSteps: [
            'Review thinking process for gaps',
            'Validate conclusions against evidence', 
            'Plan concrete actions based on analysis'
          ]
        },
        status: 'success'
      };
      
      return {
        content: [{ type: 'text', text: `Scenario: ${scenario}\nPerspective: ${perspective}\nThoughts: ${thoughtCount}\n${thinkAloudResult.thoughtProcess.map((t, i) => `${i+1}. ${t.thought} (confidence: ${t.confidence}%)`).join('\n')}\n\nNext: ${thinkAloudResult.metacognition.nextSteps.join(', ')}` }]
      };
    }
  • The ToolDefinition object defining the tool's name, description, input schema (scenario required, optional perspective and verbosity), and annotations.
    export const thinkAloudProcessDefinition: ToolDefinition = {
      name: 'think_aloud_process',
      description: 'think about|consider|what do you think|think about it|let me think|reasoning - Generate think-aloud reasoning process',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          scenario: { type: 'string', description: 'Scenario or problem to think through' },
          perspective: { type: 'string', description: 'Thinking perspective', enum: ['analytical', 'creative', 'systematic', 'critical'] },
          verbosity: { type: 'string', description: 'Verbosity level', enum: ['concise', 'moderate', 'verbose'] }
        },
        required: ['scenario']
      },
      annotations: {
        title: 'Think Aloud',
        audience: ['user', 'assistant']
      }
    };
  • src/index.ts:624-625 (registration)
    Registration in the executeToolCall switch statement: dispatches calls to the thinkAloudProcess handler.
    case 'think_aloud_process':
      return await thinkAloudProcess(args as any) as CallToolResult;
  • src/index.ts:117-117 (registration)
    Inclusion of thinkAloudProcessDefinition in the tools array used for ListTools requests.
    thinkAloudProcessDefinition,
  • src/index.ts:84-84 (registration)
    Import statement bringing in the handler and definition from the implementation file.
    import { thinkAloudProcess, thinkAloudProcessDefinition } from './tools/thinking/thinkAloudProcess.js';
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations only provide a title ('Think Aloud'), so the description carries full burden. It states the tool 'generates' something but doesn't specify what format the output takes (text stream? structured reasoning? internal process?), whether this is purely internal thinking or produces user-visible output, or any behavioral constraints. The description adds minimal value beyond the name/title.

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 a jumbled string of synonyms and examples ('think about|consider|what do you think|think about it|let me think|reasoning') followed by a dash and the core function. This format is inefficient and lacks clear structure. While brief, it's poorly organized rather than concisely informative.

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?

For a tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'think-aloud reasoning process' means in practice, what format the output takes, or how this differs from other reasoning tools on the server. The agent would struggle to understand what this tool actually produces.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all three parameters well. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description doesn't compensate with any usage examples or context for the parameters.

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 'think about|consider|what do you think|think about it|let me think|reasoning - Generate think-aloud reasoning process' is tautological - it essentially restates the tool name 'think_aloud_process' with synonyms and examples. While it indicates this generates a thinking process, it doesn't specify what kind of output or format this produces, nor does it distinguish this from sibling tools like 'step_by_step_analysis' or 'create_thinking_chain'.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling analysis and reasoning tools (analyze_problem, step_by_step_analysis, create_thinking_chain, etc.), there's no indication of what makes this 'think-aloud' approach distinct or when it's preferable to other reasoning methods.

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