Skip to main content
Glama
stabgan

Steelmind MCP

by stabgan
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v2.0.1

  • 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.

  • Average 4.7/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is failing

  • 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

  • Behavior5/5

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

    Clearly states the tool is non-destructive and read-only: 'It will not obtain new information or change any state — it appends your thought to the log.' This is fully transparent about its behavior.

    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 longer than necessary, including some meta-cognitive advice that could be seen as extraneous. While front-loaded, 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 simplicity, the description covers the main aspects: purpose, usage, and behavior. It also references the sibling tool and provides procedural tips, making it fairly complete.

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

    Parameters4/5

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

    Schema has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how to use parameters like adjusting totalThoughts and using verify when nextThoughtNeeded is false.

    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 states the tool's purpose: 'record a structured reasoning step.' It specifies it does not obtain new information or change state, and it distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'verify' by explaining when to use each.

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

    Usage Guidelines5/5

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

    Provides explicit guidance on when to use (processing results, planning, analyzing, navigating policies) and when not to use (simple single-step tasks, restating without analysis). Also instructs to use the verify tool after the final thought.

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

  • Behavior5/5

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

    No annotations provided, so description fully discloses behavior: it only logs self-assessment, obtains no new info, and changes no state. This is complete transparency.

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

    Conciseness4/5

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

    The description is well-structured with purpose first, then usage, then how-to. While slightly lengthy, every sentence adds value and there is no fluff.

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

    Completeness5/5

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

    Given the simple tool (one param, no output schema, no annotations), the description is thorough. It covers purpose, behavior, usage guidelines, and verification method, leaving no gaps.

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

    Parameters4/5

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

    Schema description coverage is 100% for the single 'concern' parameter, providing baseline 3. The description adds context by explaining that the parameter holds a critical assessment or concern, which is consistent with the tool's purpose.

    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 states the tool's purpose: to challenge and evaluate reasoning before committing to an action. It specifies that it does not obtain new information or change state, distinguishing it from its sibling 'think'.

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

    Usage Guidelines5/5

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

    Explicitly provides when to use (check compliance, validate reasoning, assess edge cases, evaluate results) and when not to use (confident cases). Includes guidance on how to verify by steel-manning the opposition.

    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

steelmind-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

steelmind-mcp 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/stabgan/steelmind-mcp'

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