MCP Sequential Thinking Tools
mcp-序贯思维工具
MCP 顺序思维服务器的改编版,旨在指导问题解决过程中工具的使用。该服务器有助于将复杂问题分解为可管理的步骤,并针对每个阶段最有效的 MCP 工具提供建议。
模型上下文协议 (MCP) 服务器将顺序思维与智能工具建议相结合。对于问题解决过程的每个步骤,它都会提供基于置信度评分的工具使用建议,并解释每种工具的适用性。
特征
🤔 通过连续思考进行动态和反思性的问题解决
🔄 灵活的思维过程,适应并不断发展
🌳 支持想法的分支和修改
🛠️ 每一步的智能工具推荐
📊 工具建议的置信度评分
🔍 工具推荐的详细理由
📝 步数追踪与预期结果
🔄 通过之前的步骤和剩余的步骤来监控进度
🎯 每个步骤的替代工具建议
Related MCP server: Clear Thought Server
工作原理
该服务器会分析您思考过程的每个步骤,并推荐合适的 MCP 工具来帮助完成任务。每项推荐均包含以下内容:
置信度分数(0-1)表示该工具与当前需求的匹配程度
清晰地解释该工具为何有用
建议工具执行顺序的优先级
也可以使用的替代工具
该服务器可与您环境中可用的任何 MCP 工具配合使用。它会根据当前步骤的需求提供建议,但实际的工具执行由使用者(例如 Claude)处理。
示例用法
以下是服务器如何指导工具使用的示例:
{
"thought": "Initial research step to understand what universal reactivity means in Svelte 5",
"current_step": {
"step_description": "Gather initial information about Svelte 5's universal reactivity",
"expected_outcome": "Clear understanding of universal reactivity concept",
"recommended_tools": [
{
"tool_name": "search_docs",
"confidence": 0.9,
"rationale": "Search Svelte documentation for official information",
"priority": 1
},
{
"tool_name": "tavily_search",
"confidence": 0.8,
"rationale": "Get additional context from reliable sources",
"priority": 2
}
],
"next_step_conditions": [
"Verify information accuracy",
"Look for implementation details"
]
},
"thought_number": 1,
"total_thoughts": 5,
"next_thought_needed": true
}服务器跟踪您的进度并支持:
创建分支来探索不同的方法
用新信息修正以前的想法
跨多个步骤维护上下文
根据当前发现建议下一步措施
配置
此服务器需要通过您的 MCP 客户端进行配置。以下是不同环境的示例:
克莱恩配置
将其添加到您的 Cline MCP 设置中:
{
"mcpServers": {
"mcp-sequentialthinking-tools": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "mcp-sequentialthinking-tools"]
}
}
}带有 WSL 配置的 Claude 桌面
对于 WSL 环境,将其添加到您的 Claude Desktop 配置中:
{
"mcpServers": {
"mcp-sequentialthinking-tools": {
"command": "wsl.exe",
"args": [
"bash",
"-c",
"source ~/.nvm/nvm.sh && /home/username/.nvm/versions/node/v20.12.1/bin/npx mcp-sequentialthinking-tools"
]
}
}
}API
服务器实现了具有可配置参数的单个 MCP 工具:
顺序思维工具
一种通过思考进行动态和反思性解决问题的工具,具有智能工具推荐。
参数:
thought(字符串,必需):您当前的思考步骤next_thought_needed(布尔值,必需):是否需要另一个思考步骤thought_number(整数,必需):当前想法数量total_thoughts(整数,必需):估计需要的想法总数is_revision(布尔值,可选):这是否改变了以前的想法revises_thought(整数,可选):正在重新考虑哪些想法branch_from_thought(整数,可选):分支点思想编号branch_id(字符串,可选):分支标识符needs_more_thoughts(布尔值,可选):是否需要更多想法current_step(对象,可选):当前步骤推荐:step_description:需要做什么recommended_tools:带有置信度分数的工具推荐数组expected_outcome:此步骤的预期结果next_step_conditions:下一步的条件
previous_steps(数组,可选):已推荐的步骤remaining_steps(数组,可选):即将执行的步骤的高级描述
发展
设置
克隆存储库
安装依赖项:
pnpm install构建项目:
pnpm build以开发模式运行:
pnpm dev出版
该项目使用变更集进行版本管理。要发布:
创建变更集:
pnpm changeset对包进行版本控制:
pnpm changeset version发布到 npm:
pnpm release贡献
欢迎贡献代码!欢迎提交 Pull 请求。
执照
MIT 许可证 - 有关详细信息,请参阅LICENSE文件。
致谢
基于模型上下文协议
改编自MCP 顺序思维服务器
Available Tools
1 toolsequentialthinking_toolsA
A detailed tool for dynamic and reflective problem-solving through thoughts. This tool helps analyze problems through a flexible thinking process that can adapt and evolve. Each thought can build on, question, or revise previous insights as understanding deepens.
IMPORTANT: When initializing this tool, you must pass all available tools that you want the sequential thinking process to be able to use. The tool will analyze these tools and provide recommendations for their use.
When to use this tool:
Breaking down complex problems into steps
Planning and design with room for revision
Analysis that might need course correction
Problems where the full scope might not be clear initially
Problems that require a multi-step solution
Tasks that need to maintain context over multiple steps
Situations where irrelevant information needs to be filtered out
When you need guidance on which tools to use and in what order
Key features:
You can adjust total_thoughts up or down as you progress
You can question or revise previous thoughts
You can add more thoughts even after reaching what seemed like the end
You can express uncertainty and explore alternative approaches
Not every thought needs to build linearly - you can branch or backtrack
Generates a solution hypothesis
Verifies the hypothesis based on the Chain of Thought steps
Recommends appropriate tools for each step
Provides rationale for tool recommendations
Suggests tool execution order and parameters
Tracks previous recommendations and remaining steps
Parameters explained:
thought: Your current thinking step, which can include:
Regular analytical steps
Revisions of previous thoughts
Questions about previous decisions
Realizations about needing more analysis
Changes in approach
Hypothesis generation
Hypothesis verification
Tool recommendations and rationale
next_thought_needed: True if you need more thinking, even if at what seemed like the end
thought_number: Current number in sequence (can go beyond initial total if needed)
total_thoughts: Current estimate of thoughts needed (can be adjusted up/down)
is_revision: A boolean indicating if this thought revises previous thinking
revises_thought: If is_revision is true, which thought number is being reconsidered
branch_from_thought: If branching, which thought number is the branching point
branch_id: Identifier for the current branch (if any)
needs_more_thoughts: If reaching end but realizing more thoughts needed
current_step: Current step recommendation, including:
step_description: What needs to be done
recommended_tools: Tools recommended for this step
expected_outcome: What to expect from this step
next_step_conditions: Conditions to consider for the next step
previous_steps: Steps already recommended
remaining_steps: High-level descriptions of upcoming steps
You should:
Start with an initial estimate of needed thoughts, but be ready to adjust
Feel free to question or revise previous thoughts
Don't hesitate to add more thoughts if needed, even at the "end"
Express uncertainty when present
Mark thoughts that revise previous thinking or branch into new paths
Ignore information that is irrelevant to the current step
Generate a solution hypothesis when appropriate
Verify the hypothesis based on the Chain of Thought steps
Consider available tools that could help with the current step
Provide clear rationale for tool recommendations
Suggest specific tool parameters when appropriate
Consider alternative tools for each step
Track progress through the recommended steps
Provide a single, ideally correct answer as the final output
Only set next_thought_needed to false when truly done and a satisfactory answer is reached
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| branch_from_thought | No | Branching point thought number | |
| branch_id | No | Branch identifier | |
| current_step | No | Current step recommendation | |
| is_revision | No | Whether this revises previous thinking | |
| needs_more_thoughts | No | If more thoughts are needed | |
| next_thought_needed | Yes | Whether another thought step is needed | |
| previous_steps | No | Steps already recommended | |
| remaining_steps | No | High-level descriptions of upcoming steps | |
| revises_thought | No | Which thought is being reconsidered | |
| thought | Yes | Your current thinking step | |
| thought_number | Yes | Current thought number | |
| total_thoughts | Yes | Estimated total thoughts needed |
TDQS
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
1 tool update
v1.0.0- First observed
sequentialthinking_tools
TDQS
Scored across 1 tool
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.
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.
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.
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.
Maintenance
Related MCP Connectors
Collision-first MCP diagnostics for MCP, API, webhook and agent failures. Returns structured evidence, bounded repair guidance, agent compatibility checks and safe recovery routing.
- WauldoOAuthcom.wauldo
Stateless agentic tools over MCP: concept extraction, long-context, knowledge graph, planning.
Find, vet, and run MCP tools through a secure audited gateway with prompt-injection risk scoring
Known MCP tool-call failures and workarounds verified by reproduction.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceAn adaptation of the MCP Sequential Thinking Server designed to guide tool usage in problem-solving. This server helps break down complex problems into manageable steps and provides recommendations for which MCP tools would be most effective at each stage.1476 npm587MIT
- FlicenseCqualityDmaintenanceProvide systematic thinking, mental models, and debugging approaches to enhance problem-solving capabilities. Enable structured reasoning and decision-making support for complex problems. Facilitate integration with MCP-compatible clients for advanced cognitive workflows.115-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceA sequential thinking tool based on the MCP protocol, used to break down complex problems into manageable steps and provide intelligent tool recommendations for each step.2Apache 2.0
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceA structured problem-solving MCP server that breaks down complex tasks into sequential steps, supports iterative refinement and branching, and helps maintain context and explore alternative reasoning paths.173 npm41MIT
Appeared in Searches
- A server for finding information about sequential thinking
- Job search for senior software engineer positions
- ADHD-related resources and information in Montgomery County Public Schools
- MCP server that acts as a professor/teacher for AI agents
- An MCP server that provides educational content and project guidance for AI training