Skip to main content
Glama

Steelmind MCP — Structured Thinking & Verification for AI Agents

npm version Docker License: MIT

The research-grounded reasoning MCP server for AI agents. Combines step-by-step sequential thinking with steel-manning verification — backed by 43+ cognitive science and AI research papers.

Steelmind gives your AI agent two tools:

  • think — Record structured reasoning steps with sequential decomposition. Embeds Socratic self-questioning and Polya's problem-solving method.

  • verify — Challenge conclusions with steel-manning before committing. Embeds dialectical evaluation from MetaCrit and SIEV research.

The code is minimal. The descriptions do the heavy lifting — tool descriptions account for ~80% of reasoning improvement per Anthropic τ-bench research.

Why Steelmind?

Feature

Think MCP

Sequential Thinking

Steelmind

Step tracking

✗

✓

✓

Adjustable step count

✗

✓

✓

Cognitive mode separation

✗

✗

✓

Steel-manning verification

✗

✗

✓

Socratic self-questioning

✗

✗

✓

Research-grounded descriptions

✗

✗

✓

Verify nudge on completion

✗

✗

✓

Tool count

1

1

2

Key research insight: MetaCrit (arxiv 2507.15015) proved that separating reasoning generation from reasoning evaluation prevents self-bias and improves accuracy by up to 76%. Sequential-thinking uses one tool for both. Steelmind separates them.

Related MCP server: Sequential Thinking MVP Server

Quick Start

npx (no install)

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "steelmind": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "@stabgan/steelmind-mcp"]
    }
  }
}

Docker

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "steelmind": {
      "command": "docker",
      "args": ["run", "--rm", "-i", "stabgan/steelmind-mcp"]
    }
  }
}

npm global install

npm install -g @stabgan/steelmind-mcp
{
  "mcpServers": {
    "steelmind": {
      "command": "steelmind-mcp"
    }
  }
}

How It Works

The think tool

Records a structured reasoning step with sequential tracking.

Input:

{
  "thought": "What are the dependencies? Need to check imports before refactoring.",
  "thoughtNumber": 1,
  "totalThoughts": 3,
  "nextThoughtNeeded": true
}

Output (mid-sequence):

[Thinking 1/3]

What are the dependencies? Need to check imports before refactoring.

Output (final step — includes verify nudge):

[Thinking 3/3]

My conclusion: use the adapter pattern for backward compatibility.

---
Thinking complete. Before acting on this conclusion, use the verify tool to challenge it.

The verify nudge appears in the tool result (not just the description), making it far more likely the model will actually call verify. Tool results get different attention treatment than descriptions — they're processed as fresh context.

The verify tool

Challenges your reasoning with steel-manning before you commit.

Input:

{
  "concern": "The adapter pattern adds complexity. Is the simpler approach actually better?"
}

Output:

The adapter pattern adds complexity. Is the simpler approach actually better?

Pure identity function — returns your concern unchanged. The value is in the description, which prompts: "Steel-man the opposition: What is the strongest argument that your conclusion is wrong?"

The workflow

think(step 1/3) → think(step 2/3) → think(step 3/3) → [verify nudge] → verify → act
                                          ↑
                                  adjust totalThoughts if needed

Research Foundation

Steelmind's design is grounded in 43+ research papers. Key findings:

Paper

Finding

How Steelmind Uses It

MetaCrit (arxiv 2507.15015)

Separating generation from evaluation prevents self-bias

Two separate tools: think (generate) + verify (evaluate)

Anthropic τ-bench

Optimized tool descriptions yield 54% improvement

Descriptions are the primary scaffold, not code

Think2 (arxiv 2602.18806)

Structured metacognition yields 3x self-correction

Sequential step tracking + Socratic questioning

SIEV (ICML)

Models lose 40+ points under dialectical evaluation

Steel-manning prompt in verify description

Scaling TTC (arxiv 2408.03314)

Difficulty-adaptive compute improves efficiency 4x

Adjustable totalThoughts

EasyTool (NAACL 2025)

Concise descriptions outperform verbose ones

~100 word descriptions

ToolACE

"When NOT to use" improves irrelevance detection 6→84%

Negative guidance in both descriptions

Cognitive Foundations (arxiv 2511.16660)

External scaffolding improves performance up to 72%

Research-grounded cognitive frameworks

Compatible Clients

Works with any MCP-compatible client:

  • Claude Desktop / Claude Code

  • Cursor

  • Windsurf

  • Kiro

  • Cline

  • Any client supporting MCP stdio transport

Compatible Models

Designed for frontier models but works across families:

  • Claude (Opus, Sonnet) — native MCP

  • GPT-5 / GPT-4o / o-series — via MCP adapters

  • Gemini — via MCP adapters

  • DeepSeek — via MCP adapters

Development

npm install          # Install dependencies
npm run build        # Compile TypeScript
npm test             # Run 90 tests
npm run lint         # ESLint
npm run format       # Prettier
npm start            # Run the server

License

MIT

Available Tools

2 tools
thinkA

Use this tool to record a structured reasoning step. It will not obtain new information or change any state — it appends your thought to the log. Use it when you need to: process results from previous tool calls before acting, plan your approach to a multi-step task, analyze a complex situation before deciding, or navigate environments with detailed policies. Do NOT use for simple single-step tasks or restating without analysis. When thinking, ask yourself: What am I assuming? What evidence supports this? What's my plan, and what could go wrong? You can adjust totalThoughts up or down as your understanding deepens. When you set nextThoughtNeeded to false, use the verify tool to challenge your conclusion before acting.

Inputs: thought (required), thoughtNumber (required), totalThoughts (required), nextThoughtNeeded (required).

verifyA

Use this tool to challenge and evaluate your reasoning before committing to an action. It will not obtain new information or change any state — it logs your critical self-assessment. Use it when you need to: check if your planned action complies with all requirements, validate reasoning before committing, assess edge cases, or evaluate tool results for correctness. Do NOT use to confirm what you are already confident about. When verifying, steel-man the opposition: What is the strongest argument that your conclusion is wrong? If you can't defeat it, reconsider. If your verification reveals a flaw, use the think tool to revise your approach.

Inputs: concern (required).

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Loading tool schema changelog…

    TDQS

    A4.7/5.0

    Scored across 2 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    Both tools have clearly distinct purposes: 'think' is for recording reasoning steps, while 'verify' is for challenging and evaluating reasoning before action. There is no ambiguity between them.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Tool names follow a consistent single-word verb pattern ('think' and 'verify'), which is appropriate for metacognitive tools and perfectly consistent.

    Tool Count4/5

    With only two tools, the set is minimal but well-scoped for a server focused on reasoning and self-reflection. It earns its place without being over or under.

    Completeness5/5

    The tools cover the essential metacognitive cycle of thinking and verifying. There are no obvious gaps for the server's intended purpose of enhancing reasoning.

    Maintenance

    ActivityInactive
    ResponsivenessNo recent community issues

    Related MCP Connectors

    Related MCP Servers