A
licenseB
qualityNot graded
maintenanceProvides structured sequential thinking capabilities for AI assistants to break down complex problems into manageable steps, revise thoughts, and explore alternative reasoning paths.
29
-
Retrieval-Augmented Thinking MCP Server
by stat-guy
검색 증강 사고 MCP 서버
구조화되고 검색 증강된 사고 프로세스를 통해 AI 모델 성능을 향상시키는 MCP(모델 컨텍스트 프로토콜) 서버 구현입니다. 이 서버는 동적 사고 사슬, 병렬 탐색 경로, 그리고 재귀적 개선 주기를 통해 추론 및 문제 해결 능력을 향상시킵니다.
특징
적응형 사고 사슬 : 분기 및 수정 기능을 통해 일관된 추론 흐름을 유지합니다.
반복적 가설 생성 : 가설 검정을 위한 검증 주기를 구현합니다.
맥락 일관성 : 비선형 추론 경로에서 맥락을 보존합니다.
동적 범위 조정 : 유연한 탐색 및 개선을 지원합니다.
품질 평가 : 사고 과정의 실시간 평가
지점 관리 : 병렬 탐색 경로를 처리합니다.
개정 추적 : 재귀적 개선 주기를 관리합니다.
Related MCP server: Sequential Thinking MVP Server
설치
지엑스피1
용법
명령줄
mcp-server-retrieval-augmented-thinking프로그래밍 방식 사용
import { Server } from '@modelcontextprotocol/sdk/server';
import { StdioServerTransport } from '@modelcontextprotocol/sdk/server/stdio';
// Initialize and run the server
const server = new Server({
name: 'retrieval-augmented-thinking',
version: '0.1.0'
});
// Connect transport
const transport = new StdioServerTransport();
await server.connect(transport);도구 구성
서버는 다음과 같은 매개변수를 가진 도구를 제공합니다.
thought(문자열): 현재 추론 단계thoughtNumber(숫자): 추론 체인의 위치totalThoughts(숫자): 예상 범위nextThoughtNeeded(부울): 체인 연속 신호isRevision(부울, 선택 사항): 세부화 단계를 표시합니다.revisesThought(숫자, 선택 사항): 대상 생각을 참조합니다.branchFromThought(숫자, 선택 사항): 분기 원점branchId(문자열, 선택 사항): 지점 식별자needsMoreThoughts(부울, 선택 사항): 범위 확장 신호
고급 기능
생각 사슬 분석
서버는 생각 사슬의 품질을 평가하기 위해 다양한 지표를 추적합니다.
체인 효과
개정의 영향
지점 성공률
전반적인 품질
개별 사고 지표(복잡성, 깊이, 품질, 영향)
패턴 인식
다음에 대한 사고 패턴을 분석합니다.
추론 구조
컨텍스트 보존
가설 검증
솔루션 일관성
개발
# Build
npm run build
# Watch mode
npm run watch기여하다
기여를 환영합니다! 기여 지침을 읽고 풀 리퀘스트를 제출해 주세요.
특허
MIT
Available Tools
1 toolratB
A context-aware reasoning system that orchestrates structured thought processes through dynamic trajectories.
Core Capabilities:
Maintains adaptive thought chains with branching and revision capabilities
Implements iterative hypothesis generation and validation cycles
Preserves context coherence across non-linear reasoning paths
Supports dynamic scope adjustment and trajectory refinement
Reasoning Patterns:
Sequential analysis with backtracking capability
Parallel exploration through managed branch contexts
Recursive refinement via structured revision cycles
Hypothesis validation through multi-step verification
Parameters: thought: Structured reasoning step that supports: • Primary analysis chains • Hypothesis formulation/validation • Branch exploration paths • Revision proposals • Context preservation markers • Verification checkpoints
next_thought_needed: Signal for continuation of reasoning chain thought_number: Position in current reasoning trajectory total_thoughts: Dynamic scope indicator (adjustable) is_revision: Marks recursive refinement steps revises_thought: References target of refinement branch_from_thought: Indicates parallel exploration paths branch_id: Context identifier for parallel chains needs_more_thoughts: Signals scope expansion requirement
Execution Protocol:
Initialize with scope estimation
Generate structured reasoning steps
Validate hypotheses through verification cycles
Maintain context coherence across branches
Implement revisions through recursive refinement
Signal completion on validation success
The system maintains solution integrity through continuous validation cycles while supporting dynamic scope adjustment and non-linear exploration paths.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| thought | Yes | Your current thinking step | |
| branchId | No | Branch identifier | |
| isRevision | No | Whether this revises previous thinking | |
| thoughtNumber | Yes | Current thought number | |
| totalThoughts | Yes | Estimated total thoughts needed | |
| revisesThought | No | Which thought is being reconsidered | |
| branchFromThought | No | Branching point thought number | |
| needsMoreThoughts | No | If more thoughts are needed | |
| nextThoughtNeeded | Yes | Whether another thought step is needed |
TDQS
B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes capabilities like branching and revisions but does not disclose side effects, statefulness, or what the tool returns when invoked. The behavior is described conceptually rather than practically.
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?
Structured with sections and bullet points, making it skimmable. However, it is somewhat verbose with overlapping sections (Core Capabilities vs Reasoning Patterns). Could be tightened without losing meaning.
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?
The description is thorough about reasoning patterns but omits what the tool actually returns or how the agent should interpret the result. With no output schema and no annotations, this is a significant gap for correct invocation and result handling.
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 covers all 9 parameters with basic descriptions. The description adds value by categorizing what each parameter supports (e.g., 'thought' supports hypothesis formulation, branch exploration, etc.) and providing domain context for fields like branch_id and is_revision.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it is a context-aware reasoning system that orchestrates structured thought processes. The verb 'orchestrates' and resource 'thought processes' are explicit, but the tool's operational purpose for an agent is somewhat abstract; no siblings to differentiate from.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides an Execution Protocol with steps, implying a multi-step reasoning workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other tools, as there are no siblings, nor does it give conditions for non-use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
1 tool update
v0.1.0- First observed
rat
TDQS
B3.1/5.0
Scored across 1 tool
Disambiguation5/5
Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility of confusion or misselection. The tool's purpose, while broad, is clearly the sole entry point.
Naming Consistency2/5
The single tool name 'rat' is vague and does not follow a clear verb_noun pattern or any recognizable convention. With only one tool, there's no consistent pattern to infer, and the name appears arbitrary.
Tool Count3/5
Exposing just one tool is on the lower end of acceptable, borderline 'thin.' Although the tool is highly capable, a server focused on 'Retrieval-Augmented Thinking' might benefit from separate tools for retrieval and reasoning sub-tasks.
Completeness2/5
The server name implies both retrieval and thinking, but the tool only covers the reasoning aspect, missing retrieval or external context fetching. This leaves a significant gap in the expected functionality, and the single tool is overloaded with parameters rather than modularly covering the domain.
Maintenance
ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues
Related MCP Connectors
Agent-to-agent reasoning-as-a-service: chain-of-thought, analysis, and decision support.
Deterministic reasoning stack for AI agents: simulate, decide & compute, plus cross-domain tools.
Persistent memory and knowledge graphs for AI agents. Hybrid search, context checkpoints, and more.
Decision memory for AI agents: record, revisit, and resolve consequential choices.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseBqualityNot gradedmaintenanceEnables AI assistants to perform structured, step-by-step reasoning by breaking down complex problems into numbered thoughts, with support for revising previous steps and exploring alternative reasoning paths.5-
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceEnables structured step-by-step reasoning with branching, revisions, and self-critique to help break down complex problems into manageable steps with confidence tracking and thought history search.719 npm7MIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceProvides advanced AI reasoning capabilities through step-by-step thinking framework, enabling complex problem-solving with dynamic thought revision, multi-path reasoning, and adaptive planning for sophisticated analysis tasks.1MIT