Skip to main content
Glama
xinzhongyouhai

MCP Sequential Thinking Tools

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.
  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    There is only one tool, so there is no ambiguity or overlap with other tools. The tool has a clearly defined and distinct purpose focused on sequential thinking and problem-solving.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    With only one tool, naming consistency is inherently perfect. The tool name 'sequentialthinking_tools' uses snake_case, which is consistent within itself, and there are no other tools to cause inconsistency.

    Tool Count2/5

    The server is named 'MCP Sequential Thinking Tools' and has only one tool, which suggests a thin or incomplete surface. For a domain focused on dynamic problem-solving and tool orchestration, a single tool may not adequately cover the expected scope, such as separate tools for planning, analysis, or verification steps.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool aims to handle complex problem-solving, planning, and tool recommendations, but as a single tool, it likely consolidates multiple functionalities into one interface. This can lead to gaps in modularity and clarity, as agents might expect separate tools for distinct phases like hypothesis generation, verification, or step tracking, rather than a monolithic solution.

  • Average 3.9/5 across 1 of 1 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 passing
  • 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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits such as adaptability ('adjust total_thoughts up or down'), revision capabilities ('question or revise previous thoughts'), and process flow ('Generates a solution hypothesis,' 'Verifies the hypothesis'), though it lacks details on error handling or performance limits.

    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 excessively long and repetitive, with multiple sections (e.g., 'Key features,' 'Parameters explained,' 'You should') that overlap in content. It includes unnecessary verbosity, such as listing 15 'You should' items, which reduces clarity and efficiency without adding proportional value.

    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 high complexity (12 parameters, nested objects) and no annotations or output schema, the description does a good job covering the tool's purpose, usage, and behavioral aspects. However, it lacks details on output format or error conditions, which are important for such a sophisticated tool, preventing a perfect score.

    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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds some value by explaining the 'thought' parameter with examples (e.g., 'Regular analytical steps,' 'Hypothesis generation') and listing other parameters, but this largely repeats schema information, resulting in a baseline score.

    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?

    The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'dynamic and reflective problem-solving through thoughts' and 'analyze problems through a flexible thinking process,' which is specific and actionable. However, with no sibling tools provided, it cannot differentiate from alternatives, preventing a perfect score.

    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?

    The description includes an explicit 'When to use this tool' section with 8 specific scenarios (e.g., 'Breaking down complex problems into steps,' 'Planning and design with room for revision'), providing clear guidance on when to apply this tool. No alternatives are mentioned due to no siblings, but the context is comprehensive.

    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

mcp-sequentialthinking-tools MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp-sequentialthinking-tools 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/xinzhongyouhai/mcp-sequentialthinking-tools'

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